Based on what?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
It’s supposed to be a private sale - bidders have allegedly signed NDA’s.
Certainly. And let's not forget questioning the ethics of those with even worse ethics than the Tories, people who make them look like hippies
Why can't we question them all for being cnuts. And I'm not just talking about Tory cnuts*
No offence to Tory cnuts*.
Ah, so you are saying ethics is a valid discussion in this thread…..
It's pretty much the only discussion surely, just most haven't realised.
My personal feeling is they were warned to stop fan sentiment favouring one particular bid which could then impact other bidders impacting the final winning bid value. Qatar had to go public though to understand if there would be a huge backlash to their bid.
Look at how he will finance the deal, it's going to be debt. We'll be making money for the banks again.
I'm with you, call out all the cnuts!
As far as I know they specifically outlined that they aren't going to put any new debt onto the club.
Source: trust me bro.
It'll be INEOs debt, bot the clubs, and they are already living in debt as that's how they operate.
INEOs paid off a very very large chunk of existing debt a year or so ago, in order to make room for a major acquisition, ie, a premier League club.
Originally it was to be United but Glazers wouldn't sell, so then the bid for Chelsea and now back to United.
It's been a plan of INEOs for a very long time this.
In my view whether it's loaded onto INEOS or the club, it will still be debt that they have to service and I can tell you for free if they can't pay it via INEOS it's going to come from the club.
There's also what he has done with Nice, it doesn't fill me with confidence.
FYI I don't prefer Qatar, I just think they have it in the bag given their huge reserves of wealth. I dread the day we will become just another state club but I feel it's inevitable.
You need a source to tell you that Qatar are richer than INEOS? I can go find one in a couple minutes but a quick google search will tell you everything you need.
They are looking over the club's finances, infrastructure, turnovers, needed funds etc.
Why do people keep likening this to buying a car or something?
Either way I'm happy with Jim or Qatar as either is infinitely better than 1 more day of Glazer ownership.
I not optimistic like you. I am afraid that Sir Jim will find a way to win this race. Which will be disaster for us
It’s to do with your first sentence, not the second.
Obviously I don't know for certain it's just my feeling and that's what we're here to do on this thread right? Express our opinions and feelings.
Honestly very little points to Jim winning the race, if you’re worried about that outcome, there’s not much reason to be.
I feel bad for @Wumminator and i don't want him to cry, so I'm supporting INEOS
Indeed, but when you come out with definitive statements people are obviously going to pull you up on it.
I don't see it that way at all
In what world would a company with £65bn revenue not be able to service their debt? Any why would it then fall on a company with a mere £690m ? Can you ‘honestly’ make sense of that?!
So Mbappe's coming then
I’m optimistic- I hope he does!
I honestly don't care if its SJR or Qatar, and I would like to argue that it really doesn't matter much if at all for us, if we are bought by either of them.
The reason for this is mainly the following.
(1) The impact of deep pockets is limited. And even if eights are skated around the new FFP rules, the "max" spending a great team can have is perfectly within reach for us.
(a) Spending must be looked at over a longer period of time. The last 4 years, PSG have on average spent 95m per season and Man City spent 157m. How about the best club on the planet, Real Madrid? The last three 3 years, they spent an average of 33m per season. The season before that, they spent 355m.
My point is just, teams don't spend just because they can. It would disrupt chemistry. And like, why burn money.
(b) How much "can" we spend on transfers? Theoretically if you built a squad:
*Of only 100m players
*Each bought player had a shelf-life of only 7 years
*The squad was 21 man strong and with a cheaper back-up GK
-> You need to spend on average of 700m per season.
This is not a scenario that is in touch with reality. The above must be adjusted. Here is why:
*You can't have 21 players that all cost 100m. Would just create issues in the locker-room. But lets still count -- extremely -- high. Lets say that a starting XI player shall cost 100m and a rotation player 50m, with a shelf-life of 5 years to account for bust signings.
*We do not start with a clean sheet. We already have a squad.
*It must be expected that we will sell players for say at least 30m per season on avg.
*It must be expected that our Academy will produce a XI player every 4th year and a rotation player every 4th year.
(c) Hence, the following break-down more or less sets out what our "maximum" spending could be.
(d) Conclusions:
-Over the coming 12 years, we could max spend 250m on avg (I disregard inflated transfer prices since everything else equal, increased transfer prices should be set-off by increased reveneue, meaning that the relative value of the numbers above still are true vs. today)
-It is of course very volatile. In 2024, we would have 570m going out, with incoming of 30m the two following years, then 270m out, 20m out, 220m out, 720m out, 80m in and so forth.
-This is a ridiculously expensive squad. But I still think that the 250m figure per season bear some value. In all likelihood we would come in below that if we are bought by Qatar. But that is kind of the max figure you could get if you don't do anything well; players only play for you at a high level for a short period, you can't sell players, you can't develop players really well.
2. The big legit fear is that building a new stadium under SJR will prevent us spending as much as is necessary. Right? And I would also question if we could afford to build a new stadium under Jim and invest 400m in the squad every summer ten years in a row. But even with a squad as absurdly expensive as the above, the avg. spend over the first 4 seasons is still only 195m.
3.What is really important, is that a club like ours do -- not -- make stupid business decisions due to lack of liquidity/funds. Not spending this January was a stupid risky business decision. Due to horrendous work on the transfer market, our squad has a big up front investment requirement.But this is not how someone like SJR --- or any real business man -- run a business. SJR has made a fortune buying up mistreated industries and making them work. Sometimes they will have required cost cutting, other times investments/modernization. You cannot become a successful business man unless you realize that its always better to take a necessary cost as soon as possible when it regards the performance capacity. This is of course exactly what Boehly is doing too.
I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that SJR wouldn't act differently than the Glazers in this regard. The Glazers are not businessman. Its a group of 6 people that never have accomplished anything, and none of them individually has any kind of wealth whatsoever.
4. Just like there are pros with Qatar, the ability to splash money on a stadium etc., there are also cons. These things are of course extremely hard to value, but seriously, how much would it be worth for our brand to be able to say 'we aren't owned by a dictator state like everyone else, we are the genuine real deal'? Look, I am not saying in any way, shape or form that it "should" matter. That is another issue. It does matter. 200%, if like a Steve Jobs was born in Manchester and was a City fan and sponsored them instead of Abu D, the "appeal" of that club would be higher than it is now. Everyone associates City with "oil money". I am not saying that this in any way should be a deciding factor, but on the balance of things, it can be mentioned for the sake of completeness.
The reason for this is mainly the following.
(1) The impact of deep pockets is limited. And even if eights are skated around the new FFP rules, the "max" spending a great team can have is perfectly within reach for us.
(a) Spending must be looked at over a longer period of time. The last 4 years, PSG have on average spent 95m per season and Man City spent 157m. How about the best club on the planet, Real Madrid? The last three 3 years, they spent an average of 33m per season. The season before that, they spent 355m.
My point is just, teams don't spend just because they can. It would disrupt chemistry. And like, why burn money.
(b) How much "can" we spend on transfers? Theoretically if you built a squad:
*Of only 100m players
*Each bought player had a shelf-life of only 7 years
*The squad was 21 man strong and with a cheaper back-up GK
-> You need to spend on average of 700m per season.
This is not a scenario that is in touch with reality. The above must be adjusted. Here is why:
*You can't have 21 players that all cost 100m. Would just create issues in the locker-room. But lets still count -- extremely -- high. Lets say that a starting XI player shall cost 100m and a rotation player 50m, with a shelf-life of 5 years to account for bust signings.
*We do not start with a clean sheet. We already have a squad.
*It must be expected that we will sell players for say at least 30m per season on avg.
*It must be expected that our Academy will produce a XI player every 4th year and a rotation player every 4th year.
(c) Hence, the following break-down more or less sets out what our "maximum" spending could be.
(d) Conclusions:
-Over the coming 12 years, we could max spend 250m on avg (I disregard inflated transfer prices since everything else equal, increased transfer prices should be set-off by increased reveneue, meaning that the relative value of the numbers above still are true vs. today)
-It is of course very volatile. In 2024, we would have 570m going out, with incoming of 30m the two following years, then 270m out, 20m out, 220m out, 720m out, 80m in and so forth.
-This is a ridiculously expensive squad. But I still think that the 250m figure per season bear some value. In all likelihood we would come in below that if we are bought by Qatar. But that is kind of the max figure you could get if you don't do anything well; players only play for you at a high level for a short period, you can't sell players, you can't develop players really well.
2. The big legit fear is that building a new stadium under SJR will prevent us spending as much as is necessary. Right? And I would also question if we could afford to build a new stadium under Jim and invest 400m in the squad every summer ten years in a row. But even with a squad as absurdly expensive as the above, the avg. spend over the first 4 seasons is still only 195m.
3.What is really important, is that a club like ours do -- not -- make stupid business decisions due to lack of liquidity/funds. Not spending this January was a stupid risky business decision. Due to horrendous work on the transfer market, our squad has a big up front investment requirement.But this is not how someone like SJR --- or any real business man -- run a business. SJR has made a fortune buying up mistreated industries and making them work. Sometimes they will have required cost cutting, other times investments/modernization. You cannot become a successful business man unless you realize that its always better to take a necessary cost as soon as possible when it regards the performance capacity. This is of course exactly what Boehly is doing too.
I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that SJR wouldn't act differently than the Glazers in this regard. The Glazers are not businessman. Its a group of 6 people that never have accomplished anything, and none of them individually has any kind of wealth whatsoever.
4. Just like there are pros with Qatar, the ability to splash money on a stadium etc., there are also cons. These things are of course extremely hard to value, but seriously, how much would it be worth for our brand to be able to say 'we aren't owned by a dictator state like everyone else, we are the genuine real deal'? Look, I am not saying in any way, shape or form that it "should" matter. That is another issue. It does matter. 200%, if like a Steve Jobs was born in Manchester and was a City fan and sponsored them instead of Abu D, the "appeal" of that club would be higher than it is now. Everyone associates City with "oil money". I am not saying that this in any way should be a deciding factor, but on the balance of things, it can be mentioned for the sake of completeness.
How in the flying titty feck is the club supposed to service a £4.5 billion debt, we struggled to clear a £700 million one in over 15 years, if the debt was called on the club the club would cease to be a thing or sold again
Also for Nice see Al Thani family running of Malaga
Sjr rocked up for the photo op I see..
I’d be happy with either ownership, I sort of get why it’s seen as Qatar or more of the same in some corners, but I don’t think that’s the reality. We’re fully capable of being a self funded club, including renovations to Old Trafford and the training ground, we just need owners that are interested in that side as well as the commercial aspect.
These kinds of news are impossible to hide from the media, though.
How do you think the club can self fund renovations to both the training ground and Stadium without any investment?
We have cash reserves of £20m in the bank.
Yes obviously its about the money.
More investment in the club means better success on the pitch that's not exactly rocket science is it?
Can't even be arsed to wear a tie to an important business meeting.
He's not a serious contender for me.
I'm out.
Well I’m not an accountant for United, but I think we have a bit more to spend than £20 million, surely if that were actually the case we couldn’t spend the money the Qatari’s have without breaking FFP anyway no?
If it's really so, then I'd prefer Qatar. Better performance transforms to better image over time.
- Status