I am pro qatar and I agree that it was a pr mistakesomeone worth billions does not follow what you would consider social norms.
You lot are incredible all this thread shows is how desperate people use data of any kind which conforms to their bias.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Private jet then. You'd still be there if it was your money. It's not his money though.
UnitedpeopleTV, Stretford Paddock, the muppetiers. Frankly I am binging everything on the subject at this point
You lost all credibility citing YouTube channels!
If what I heard is true, it's too early for that. At phase 2 candidates are given enough financial data to place a second and more definitive bid.
The Sheikhs stayed for 10 hours, but Ratty took one look at the toilets and thought nah not for me. Off in 10 minutes.
Many act as aggregetors of info (ex articles from the athletic or simon stones) while some invite journalists themselves. Ben Jacobs for example is a regular to unitedpeopletv
Underrated, level-headed post.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.
There’s the same man in both pics?
Seems like a bit of back tracking to me
Tbf he went to Carrington afterwards
We’ve seen a couple of small flags at matches, not many huge ones.
Probably needed a piss.
I am pro Qatari but i think its unfair to consider sjr as a chancer. He is putting his face out there to a bid for the acquisition of a club were fans are ruthless. We still laugh at Knighton till this very day.
Anyone who follows the news would know the phase 2 contains much more financial info that is not available in annual reports, such as the exact contract details of playing staff, exact sponsorship details by all sponsors etc.You completely made this up, didn't you?
No Ratcliffe tweets? This time yesterday we had plenty of them.
Why do you feel this way? Bearing in mind, pre-Boehly, we were the biggest spenders in Europe? And even with this in mind, I, and many others, still wanted the Glazers out.
Will be good to understand our logic on this.
Tell them he retired 10 years ago
Has the meeting even ended?
Well of course we still laugh at Knighton, his vaudeville act in front of the Stretford End is one of the most comical things in football most of us have ever seen
Any chance this can be set to read tweets only
The meeting today did all that? Because that is specifically what we are talking about.
You'd think that as a front man for Qatar Jassim would have shown up
True but over 30 years has passed since the events took place
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There is a seperate thread for that.
Phase 2 will give buyers access to more sensitive financial info. It also an opportunity for the Glazers to explain why they are asking for 6b for the club
Last edited:
Same if you’re spending 5bn why only spend 30 minutes at the potential new place.
At least Jassim advisors spent most of the day there doing due diligence. INEOS went for a photo op it seems, more than happy to pose for the cameras.
He’s a definite serious player in this and his game is simply waiting for the glaziers to upset the Qatar bid and then to pull out !
For one, most of the anti-INEOS rhetoric is based purely on speculation and mistruths (ie. they can't afford to upgrade the infrastructure or don't care, they are bluffers, they ran the other sporting ventures poorly, etc).
Secondly, given the first point, the notion that Qatar winning the bid equates to more long-term on-the-field success doesn't really hold any weight unless you believe they will have a larger impact in terms of playing staff (ie. transfers)
You literally took the effort to bold the part of the original comment which refer very clearly to the new information given in phase 2, and you ridiculed him by accusing him of making that up.You completely made this up, didn't you?
Now when I want to talk about phase 2, you suddenly shift the goal post by claiming that you were discussing about the meeting instead.
They went to Carrington
They had to meet in person to receive additional financial info? Pretty sure they can just send an encrypted email.
All that detective work and you didn't read the original post he was referring to when I first responded.
Phase 2 was referring to the meeting. Try againMeetings are not usually data heavy. They have the financials (those are public), they've had access to the data room already. If their finance worker bees have been exchanging questions/notes about depreciation schedules and arguing about WACC, that can have been done for weeks before these meetings.
Also experts in finance, such as the man who chairs a bank and sat on the board of another?
Prospective buyers have signed NDAs to delete sensitive data once the ordeal is over. However there is no guarantee that they will do that and far less ways to enforce it.
Thus its wise from the Glazers side not to allow certain data to leave the premises
Glazers showed up didn't they?
That sort of stuff is in the data room, which has been available since ~ January.
It’s a rock and a hard place. SJR is playing the community card to create a bit of artificial romance in the media, and likely brings debt, financing, and a similar situation to what we have now with the Glazers. Qatar on the other hand bring sportswashing alongside a shedload of cash.
I don’t really want either of them, but then again I can’t really think of anyone I would want in an ideal world.
I don’t really want either of them, but then again I can’t really think of anyone I would want in an ideal world.
How is any of this stopping them from just sending an encrypted email? It's a bit silly that due diligence must be done at their offices in such a short time span.
You said the following, " I believe the over-the-top pro-Qatar rhetoric has more to do with the belief in having more transfer funds than anything else mentioned."
The "pro-Qatar" rhetoric is purely about transfers, as per what I just quoted you. You dismiss everything else which has been the reason for people wanting Qatar. But as I stated, under the Glazers post SAF we've, spent the most, and we still want them out. So, could it be more than just transfer for the pro-Qatar people?
It’s nothing like what the Glazers did - INEOS have clearly stated no new debt will be leveraged against the club. The club will be debt free.
- Status