Due to lack of investment though mate. Not out of choice.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
Ratcliffe is richer than Abramovic (and Boehly/Walter/Wyss).Chelsea? They're not a ME sponsorship, but they also had a similar sugar daddy.
And after United start winning silverware again, United would attract newer and younger fans and the ones that walked would inevitably come back.Yeah many would definitely walk with ME owners
Ballmer goes for it and has a serious passion to win, he wouldn't be my first choice, but he would be leaps and bounds better than the Glaziers. There's a salary cap in the NDA, but he spends as much as he possibly can. Unfortunately, he has a star player that is constantly hurt or on the verge of being hurt, and in the NBA, if you don't have one of the top 5 players in the league, you ain't winning shit.Can someone who knows more about this US guy Ballmer tell us is he likely to be a similar type owner to Boehly at all
His net worth is about $7billion less than Abramovich’s peak.Ratcliffe is richer than Abramovic (and Boehly/Walter/Wyss).
According to Wikipedia he's worth about 15 billion, no idea if that's accurateHis net worth is about $7billion less than Abramovich’s peak.
12.5 according to Bloomberg billionaires index.According to Wikipedia he's worth about 15 billion, no idea if that's accurate
OK so not all US options are totally shite then. Any more of that type of passionate owner would be interesting,sounds like he gets very invested in his teams which is positive.Ballmer goes for it and has a serious passion to win, he wouldn't be my first choice, but he would be leaps and bounds better than the Glaziers. There's a salary cap in the NDA, but he spends as much as he possibly can. Unfortunately, he has a star player that is constantly hurt or on the verge of being hurt, and in the NBA, if you don't have one of the top 5 players in the league, you ain't winning shit.
That’s just wrong. Plenty left at the time of the Glazer takeover and didn’t come back. It might be a topic that you or others don’t care about, or to that extent, but for some people it’ll be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.And after United start winning silverware again, United would attract newer and younger fans and the ones that walked would inevitably come back.
I think you need to look up how businesses of that size work. You think they legitimately only made 500 million when they pulled in 60B? Money is being accounted for in a manner that allows them to be taxed less. United would go a fair way into adding to that.INEOS made a £250m loss in 2020 and £500m profit in 2022.
This £60b turnover figure that gets touted is highly misleading. If I turnover £600,000 a year but make profit of £10k, I have no business buying a £100k Porsche
One might be pounds and the other dollars - either way he's not short of a bob or 2!12.5 according to Bloomberg billionaires index.
Forbes lists Ratcliffe at $15.5bn (£12.52bn). Abramovic's peak was reported at £11.7bn pre-2008 (the financial crash reportedly wiped about £3bn off his net worth, which eventually sunk to a lowly £6.4bn by 2016).His net worth is about $7billion less than Abramovich’s peak.
Indeed.One might be pounds and the other dollars - either way he's not short of a bob or 2!
The truth is. We have no idea of his wealth. It could easily be double or triple that.Indeed.
Much like the way many companies don't make any profit. BP. Apple to name but a few.I think you need to look up how businesses of that size work. You think they legitimately only made 500 million when they pulled in 60B? Money is being accounted for in a manner that allows them to be taxed less. United would go a fair way into adding to that.
Those fans might not have come back to Old Trafford but they remained fans and were replaced by new match going fans. I don’t think you completely end your interest because of the ownership unless it runs that deep.That’s just wrong. Plenty left at the time of the Glazer takeover and didn’t come back. It might not be a topic that you or others don’t care about, or to that extent, but for some people it’ll be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Spurs had invested in a stadium. It's a shrewd piece of business and its benefits will outshine the drawbacks. Leeds and Barcelona's debt was the result of bad management. That's why the likes of myself are so concerned about yet another clueless owner coming in and from what I read INEOS makes Woodward look like prime SAF.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.
As usual London clubs are treated differently from those up North which is kind of ironic considering that most CLs (thus international honours that bring prestige to the country) were won by clubs outside of London. FFS the city with its endless list of clubs had won as many CLs as Nottingham Forest.It's not illegal. It was just a government stipulation as part of Chelsea's sale.
Correct.That’s just wrong.
Certain owners? Arab owners?Correct.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do believe I'm fairly representative of a certain kind of fan (in terms of background, age, and so forth).
If I made a decision to walk away from United, that is: not to define myself as a United fan anymore, I wouldn't do so lightly and easily.
And I certainly wouldn't change my mind just because United (under whatever ownership I had a huge problem with in the first place) turned out to win trophies.
The idea that we all just want United to...win things and that anything resembling a, let's say, moral objection is just empty posturing...is incorrect.
If United were purchased by certain owners tomorrow, I know a lot of United fans who would regard that as the last straw. They would - indeed - abandon the club.
I'd guess any owner that used the club for sport-washing.Certain owners? Arab owners?
Like a company that uses Crude Oil, Gas, Ethane/Propane to produce some very nasty and dangerous chemicals & pollutants?I'd guess any owner that used the club for sport-washing.
We are currently spending circa £20m in interest payments every season, servicing the Glazers debt. Add to this circa £30m in dividends every year and that’s a fair chunk towards the transfer kitty.The Arnold and Murtough thing fine. But if you just settle the debt how are you financing the stadium, training ground and football team?
The club closes to us in debt is Spurs and that’s due to their stadium mortgage? You think these mini billionaires are going to go broke giving us a stadium for free.
Yawn.Like a company that uses Crude Oil, Gas, Ethane/Propane to produce some very nasty and dangerous chemicals & pollutants?
I know research is very hard for some. But I always figure if you’re going to judge from a moral pedestal at least be consistent, do your research, then speak.Yawn.
Agreed… but for £6bn what kind of sale is that.We are currently spending circa £20m in interest payments every season, servicing the Glazers debt. Add to this circa £30m in dividends every year and that’s a fair chunk towards the transfer kitty.
Any stadium development would likely be debt funded or partially funded by sponsorships, but that’s not the same as debt for debts sake. We would at least have something to show for it, and the stadium improvements would likely pay for themselves in time.
Guess that rules out Ratcliffe thenLike a company that uses Crude Oil, Gas, Ethane/Propane to produce some very nasty and dangerous chemicals & pollutants?
That's fair. I still think that if a ME group comes in and United start winning silverware again that it will end up being a net gain as far as the amount of United fans are concerned.That’s just wrong. Plenty left at the time of the Glazer takeover and didn’t come back. It might be a topic that you or others don’t care about, or to that extent, but for some people it’ll be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Goodness, gracious.Like a company that uses Crude Oil, Gas, Ethane/Propane to produce some very nasty and dangerous chemicals & pollutants?
I actually think Pogba is a good analogy for what could happen under state ownership.Agreed… but for £6bn what kind of sale is that.
Poor one if you ask me. In transfer terms it’s a Harry Maguire.. But to cater for everyone it’s a Paul Pogba.
That’s why I want the desert money. They don’t go Todd Boehly trying to buy 22 players in two windows. They do things properly, constructive. No egos.I actually think Pogba is a good analogy for what could happen under state ownership.
Big Money, huge expectations, hyped to the max but never really did it consistently, upset a lot of people and was ultimately hugely disappointing.
Oil money is no guarantee of success.
Are you comfortable typing this on your phone/laptop/desktop most likely made in a factory with highly questionable HSE standards?Like a company that uses Crude Oil, Gas, Ethane/Propane to produce some very nasty and dangerous chemicals & pollutants?
No need. Ineos are desperate. Hoping top reds will fight for them.I thought another interested buyer might have gone public by now since Ineos
Yes. Because I’m not the one moral pedestaling about United’s next owners, I’m merely pointing out that INEOS could easily be demonised.Are you comfortable typing this on your phone/laptop/desktop most likely made in a factory with highly questionable HSE standards?
Doesn’t look like that at PSG. This Nasser guy has the biggest ego of all.That’s why I want the desert money. They don’t go Todd Boehly trying to buy 22 players in two windows. They do things properly, constructive. No egos.
Unfortunately no potential buyer will be targetting the club without having something to gain.Would be nice to hear from a prospective bidder that they want to make us a force again,not untapped financial potential
We have broken the British transfer fee record at least a couple of times.Transfer record fee? Yep.
