Maybe you should have done this first?
Glazers exploring potential sale | Stay on topic and post respectfully | Do not post dodgy tweet sources
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
Yes they’re trying to grow. Let them do that with Liverpool not us. We need serious investment.
Spurs have more debt than United
Not at all.
You asked me two or three times if I was sure that SAF hadn't broken the transfer record. It's well known amongst united fans are probably football fans in general that he never did. Its also well known that under his tenure we were rarely the highest spenders.
If you can afford that Porsche then yeah, you have every business.
What you fail to take into consideration is INEOs will be able to supply and supplement the club with infrastructure income, whilst creating more sponsorship opportunities, whilst the club makes profit as well.
So to use your analogy, you have to view your Porsche as a money making entity as well. You can buy that car, and enable that car to be self sufficient as well as utilising other revenue streams to 'pimp' it up.
How to buy that car? Loans, which are a staple of INEOs, who have paid €billions in loans the past few years.
Erm what
Seriously? Buying united would suck up 30-40% of his net worth.
He's rich but not when spending 5-6billion quid. It's not like he had that in cash to start with. There is rich and then the super rich.
You must be a new united fan then. From Gordon McQueen to robbo to keano? Sound familiar?
I think Everton coming onto the market puts a ceiling on United's price. Three Pl clubs on sale ...who would have thought!
Semantics - he means the world record transfer record which wasn't specified, SAF broke the British record more than once
You do realise INEOS are ploughing money into sports in order to keep that profit low right?
Why pay more tax when you can invest?
Have Everton not denied that they're for sale?
None of which were transfer records.
Anyway. My point is that United have never needed to consistently spend big to succeed
So a British transfer record isn't a transfer record?
And most football fans, United's included, would laugh at your last statement, you're either a WUM or have only observed football for a short period
No. It's not the Football Transfer Record. It's a BRITISH TRANSFER RECORD. Just Google 'football transfer record list' and see what comes up.
Little tip for you. If you're going to ask a question make sure you ask the question you want an answer to.
What is wrong with people on this site? Honestly. Despite factually proving someone wrong they continue to dig that hole. I don't know you. Admitting you made a mistake in the question won't mean anything.
Everton aren't for sale.
I mean the class of 92 didn’t cost much did they?
In the UK its now illegal to buy a club on debt to then saddle such debt on the club. It's nicknamed the Glazers clauseWhat are you on about?
It’s not at all illegal to take out debt on a football man.
If you had to choose would you take;
1) Owners who don't take dividends and clear the debt, but only provide basic refurbs to the stadium and Carrington in the form of some eggshell white paint.
2) Owners who finance a new stadium and training facilities, build a skylight to the moon etc, but are a dodgy hedge fund with ties to bandits who strangle baby polar bears.
1) Owners who don't take dividends and clear the debt, but only provide basic refurbs to the stadium and Carrington in the form of some eggshell white paint.
2) Owners who finance a new stadium and training facilities, build a skylight to the moon etc, but are a dodgy hedge fund with ties to bandits who strangle baby polar bears.
It's not illegal. It was just a government stipulation as part of Chelsea's sale.
Never came in. Chelsea were the prodigal sons for some reason. Still don’t understand the mollycoddling but here we are
You are partly right. I think it comes in end of the season, its being looked at now.
No but the rest of the team didn't exactly come cheap
I actually agree with @Zippycup
United did spend money but usually on one marquee signing. The rest were a combination of lesser known players from the PL or youth.
Nothing like what the likes of City have done and now Chelsea continue you to do.
Sir Alex knew the art of when to refresh the squad and also identify players who were ready to make the step up to United. Often it was by buying players from within the PL like Yorke, Valencia, Carrick, Young etc
I can't reveal my sources, but I've heard Chelsea are expected to place a bid in the coming days.
Would be nice to hear from a prospective bidder that they want to make us a force again,not untapped financial potential
There was football before the PL and I don't disagree about how it is now, but SAF spent a lot of money in the 80's, 90's and 00's and United were one of the biggest spenders in the UK - not TRANSFER RECORD FEES but some were BRITISH TRANSFER RECORD FEES - that's just splitting hairs - pre PL days most transfers were domestic British ones
Check the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64396928
Everton: Farhad Moshiri says Toffees are not for sale - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64396928
To be honest I think that goes hand in hand. To make United a financial giant, it takes big investment in off field infrastructure as well as a team competing for the highest honours.
If the team is struggling then record sponsorship is unlikely to happen, doing well makes us a lot more attractive for 3rd parties to push the upper limits of sponsorship value
That's why I think we need middle east ownership
The last 25 winners of the UEFA Champions League did not have ME ownership. The current Premier League leaders do not have ME ownership. It is not a necessary condition of competing.
Agreed.
Alao. Take away Pep from city and they wouldn't have been anywhere near as dominant in the league.
You don’t need a leveraged takeover to saddle a club in debt, see current Spurs, and early 00’s Leeds, current Barcelona etc etc.
And no, that isn’t illegal by the way, I thought it too but it’s sadly not yet.
All clubs, especially ones with smaller fan bases should be thankful for owners that make them extremely financially sound.
Indeed. Liverpool have achieved 90+ points in three of the last four seasons. Again, they do not have ME ownership. Without Pep, City's infinite money would not likely have been enough to see them finish ahead of Liverpool during that period.
A good manager, paired with a good DoF and scouting system, can turn £150m net a year of transfer spending into a team that can compete with anyone. United (especially a debt-free United) can comfortably manage that and they don't need ME ownership to do it.
If you'd taken SAF away from United the same would also have been true
Chelsea? They're not a ME sponsorship, but they also had a similar sugar daddy.
I know.
We hadn't won the league in 26 years before SAF won it in 93 and we are now in our *10th year without a title post SAF.
*Despite spending ridiculous amounts of money