Glazers exploring potential Utd sale | Jim Ratcliffe confirms interest

  • Based on the club's statement regarding Mason Greenwood, the site's current policy will continue until further clarity about the player's future is known.

    So to reiterate, all discussions about Mason Greenwood remain off limits.

Mainoldo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
21,103
Considering they put a bid of circa $4.5b for Chelsea, I'd say they are serious contenders to do just that.

INEOs and Ratcliffe have already stated their desire to have a portfolio of clubs with a big club central to it. It's part of a wider sports conglomerate for them.
Yes they’re trying to grow. Let them do that with Liverpool not us. We need serious investment.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
47,061
Location
Manchester
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.
Spurs have more debt than United
 

Zippycup

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
978
Now you're just being silly
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.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
7,692
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
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.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
20,288
Location
Hell on Earth
Because he's one of the richest men on the Earth.
Bloody hell
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.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
20,288
Location
Hell on Earth
I find this notion that billionaires go around spending 100 mil for shits and giggles extremely amusing.

Ineos' Nice experiment has been poor so far and even their fan forums say so, but we have people on here saying it's nonsense or that what they do to Nice doesn't matter because we are a bigger club. I wonder if they will take Everton owners now since Everton is obviously not as big a club as us and presumably they will do better here because that is how things work according to some.
I think Everton coming onto the market puts a ceiling on United's price. Three Pl clubs on sale ...who would have thought!
 

Red in STL

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
2,373
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
You must be a new united fan then. From Gordon McQueen to robbo to keano? Sound familiar?
Semantics - he means the world record transfer record which wasn't specified, SAF broke the British record more than once
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
20,472
Location
Somewhere out there
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
You do realise INEOS are ploughing money into sports in order to keep that profit low right? :lol:

Why pay more tax when you can invest?
 

Zippycup

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
978
You must be a new united fan then. From Gordon McQueen to robbo to keano? Sound familiar?
None of which were transfer records.

Anyway. My point is that United have never needed to consistently spend big to succeed
 

Red in STL

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
2,373
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
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
 

Zippycup

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
978
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.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
47,061
Location
Manchester
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
I mean the class of 92 didn’t cost much did they?
 

Mr Pigeon

Handsome genius
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
22,936
Location
On your chimney, taking a lovely big shit
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.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,241
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 clause
Never came in. Chelsea were the prodigal sons for some reason. Still don’t understand the mollycoddling but here we are
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
8,864
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 clause
You are partly right. I think it comes in end of the season, its being looked at now.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
47,061
Location
Manchester
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
 

Telsim

Full Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
2,282
I can't reveal my sources, but I've heard Chelsea are expected to place a bid in the coming days.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
22,662
Would be nice to hear from a prospective bidder that they want to make us a force again,not untapped financial potential
 

Red in STL

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
2,373
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
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
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
 

Steve Bruce

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
998
Would be nice to hear from a prospective bidder that they want to make us a force again,not untapped financial potential
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
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
22,662
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
 

Zippycup

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
978
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.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
20,472
Location
Somewhere out there
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 clause
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.
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
12,161
Location
left wing
Agreed.
Alao. Take away Pep from city and they wouldn't have been anywhere near as dominant in the league.
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.
 

Sviken

Full Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
2,073
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.
Chelsea? They're not a ME sponsorship, but they also had a similar sugar daddy.
 

Zippycup

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
978
If you'd taken SAF away from United the same would also have been true
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
 
X