Saudi sports minister gives update on buying club from Glazers

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
13,354
Location
manchester
I'm speaking of UTD. Don't care much about City.
Malcolm Glazer was the Utd Fan...i'm yet to be convinced that any of the kids are fans. Did here something about one of the sons, but not sure if that's true or PR bullshit.
I don't think he ever even stepped inside the stadium
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,387
Location
left wing
Mods can you lock this thread until something actually happens? (it wont)
This would probably be best for all concerned.

When the Saudis complete the Newcastle purchase this summer, the Caf can then delete all these Saudi thread abominations and pretend they never happened.
 

BR7

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
702
Location
Taxi for Solskjaer
If I remember it all started with Joel going to a Spurs game and he then got an interest in the finances of the various clubs he then looked at United, put a business proposition (which we are all so pleased about) together and took it to his dad Malcolm. He then had it looked into more and the rest is sad history
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,810
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
Isn't this counter productive? We want to get rid of a ownership who knows nothing about football and bring in another who knows nothing as well. Unless, i missed the news that Bezo is a lifelong UTD/Football fan?
Honestly, the best (realistic) form of ownership is somebody who does run us well as a business and stays the hell away from the footballing side. I'd prefer not to be a rich guys plaything.

Probably the biggest issue I have with the Glazers is that they are doing a shit job in terms of running us as a business, namely by keeping a CEO who is doing a terrible job. Our failure on the field and all the economics directly related to that has cost the club a huge amount of money with wasted transfer money and wages, potential revenue growth gone wasted, and ultimately the club is probably worth at least half a billion pounds less (perhaps closer to a billion) than what it would be if we'd been run correctly and stayed at the top of the field. Yes it's worth a hell of a lot more than what it was when they first took over, but we're seeing other clubs grow faster and that is only going to increase as we rely purely on the 'name' of our brand. Obviously it doesn't matter to us what our club is 'worth', but that's what the owners should be looking at and why I don't understand what the Glazer's are doing since they are supposed to be businessmen.

Somebody running us properly would look to have the best CEO possible in that role, and under him would have the best specialists possible. Instead we are up to seven years of things not working and as far as we can see nothing has been changed near the top echelons of the clubs decision making.
 
Last edited:

lewwoo

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
1,700
Location
Bridgwater
Somebody running us properly would look to have the best CEO possible in that role, and under him would have the best specialists possible. Instead we are up to seven years of things not working and as far as we can see nothing has been changed near the top echelons of the clubs decision making
I am convinced Woody has some dirt on the glazers. Only explanation.
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,931

Looks like a March time-line makes more sense for him looking at this stage of rehab.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France

Looks like a March time-line makes more sense for him looking at this stage of rehab.
Wrong thread? And I'm pretty sure that it's not recent, that's where he was in October and according to reports he is rehabing in Manchester with McTominay.
 

Member 101269

Guest
Looks like a March time-line makes more sense for him looking at this stage of rehab.
Regardless of where or when it was taken, this shows a different message
 
Last edited by a moderator:

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,931
Wrong thread? And I'm pretty sure that it's not recent, that's where he was in October and according to reports he is rehabing in Manchester with McTominay.
Thats his latest insta post. He did his rehab in the u.s last time
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
Thats his latest insta post. He did his rehab in the u.s last time
He doesn't necessarily post recent things, the previous post was from 2018. But the haircut(more efficient than carbone dating) in the video is from January if I'm not mistaken.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,413
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Weird. I don't feel pleased or upset by this, I just feel nothing. I've wanted us to drop out of the Champions League for years, now it's finally happened and I'm pretty nonplussed.

The truth is that I've slowly been losing interest in City since 2016. I've missed more home games than I've attended in the last year, I can't remember the last time going to a match didn't feel like a chore, and honestly I'm not really comfortable with the way we're being run and what our success really means for football.

I was hoping they'd form that European Super League so I'd have a good enough reason to give it all up, but my total non-reaction to what should be seismic news might have just sealed it. I've grown so numb towards City, and supporting us has become so easy, that it's sort of lost meaning. We've had our success now - more than I ever dreamed of - so this feels like the right time to just step aside and focus on other interests.

I've had big changes in my personal life over the last two years and I reckon dropping football to pay closer attention to those changes is what's needed. City can carry on doing what they do, I just don't feel that much anymore. I should be gutted or angry about, or even happy and excited because we finally don't have to play in the Champions League. Instead I feel nothing.

Discussing football is an argument waiting to happen, following City is giving me too much cognitive dissonance, demanding more and more success after the decade we've just had smacks of greed. The gap between the haves and have-nots is growing so unbelievably large in football now that I don't see a sustainable future for the game - this FFP ruling, and everything that'll subsequently happen, is all part of it.

It's like with your lot. Your only hope of not being run by the Glazers comes in the form of a Saudi prince whose list of humans rights abuses is somehow worse than our owners'. The whole thing's a corporate nightmare and I can't wait to be done with it. I've sold so many tickets for home games this season that City won't let me renew my seasoncard by default, so I'll see off David Silva in his final game and bow out.
Quoting this post in here as I said I would last night. Again, thanks to Robin A. Microwave for being so candid and it's exactly the sort of fears I have over Saudi ownership of this club.


Talking of the City issues, I can't work out if this makes our ownership from the Saudis more or less likely.

On the one hand, they might be put off by the idea that they can't spend their own money however they damn well like and if they're looking for a vanity project then it doesn't make much sense to take over a football club to show the world how rich and powerful they are if they're not allowed to flout said wealth and blow the competition away with disgusting displays of gross opulence.

On the other hand, it surely puts to bed the idea that a club like Newcastle could represent value to them. There's no way you can take over a club like that, spend within FFP and reach the top like City did. Worryingly, I think this makes us the most attractive, purchasable club in world football now.

You could take over United tomorrow, relieve the club of it's debt and promise that we are going to be spending the absolute maximum value possible under FFP rules every single summer, overhauling from bottom to top and then go and renegotiate our sponsorship deals on that basis and easily boost out income by a very large percentage. We're virtually the only club that you could do that with because we already have the revenue to fund crazy spending sprees and we already have the profile to justify legitimate, huge sponsorship deals with no need for shady deals with daddy's airline.
 

Champagne Football

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
4,187
Location
El Beatle
Quoting this post in here as I said I would last night. Again, thanks to Robin A. Microwave for being so candid and it's exactly the sort of fears I have over Saudi ownership of this club.


Talking of the City issues, I can't work out if this makes our ownership from the Saudis more or less likely.

On the one hand, they might be put off by the idea that they can't spend their own money however they damn well like and if they're looking for a vanity project then it doesn't make much sense to take over a football club to show the world how rich and powerful they are if they're not allowed to flout said wealth and blow the competition away with disgusting displays of gross opulence.

On the other hand, it surely puts to bed the idea that a club like Newcastle could represent value to them. There's no way you can take over a club like that, spend within FFP and reach the top like City did. Worryingly, I think this makes us the most attractive, purchasable club in world football now.

You could take over United tomorrow, relieve the club of it's debt and promise that we are going to be spending the absolute maximum value possible under FFP rules every single summer, overhauling from bottom to top and then go and renegotiate our sponsorship deals on that basis and easily boost out income by a very large percentage. We're virtually the only club that you could do that with because we already have the revenue to fund crazy spending sprees and we already have the profile to justify legitimate, huge sponsorship deals with no need for shady deals with daddy's airline.
This City makes some good points, and there are concerns. but I'd say for every 1 fan like him at City that is not happy with things, there are 1000 who are very happy to be winning titles and having a team packed with superstars. Is the gap really widening between the top few and the rest? In the 90's it was only Arsenal or Utd who could win the league. Just 4 years ago, a team with odds of 5000/1 won the league. You have the likes of mid-table clubs like Wolves, Everton, West Ham etc who have squads packed with big names such as Ruben Neves and Felipe Anderson. Maybe it's Guardiola's tiki-taka style that is making the matches boring for some of their fans? In most games they have 95% possession and just pass other teams off the park effortlessly, and yes that is pretty tedious on the eye. I don't hear Liverpool fans saying the same about Klopp's style.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,740
On the other hand, it surely puts to bed the idea that a club like Newcastle could represent value to them. There's no way you can take over a club like that, spend within FFP and reach the top like City did. Worryingly, I think this makes us the most attractive, purchasable club in world football now.
I think you are spot on here on the Newcastle point and that we are the most attractive option

We already have amongst the worlds highest revenue streams. They would undoubtedly add to that with ridiculously high sponsorship deals from Saudi owned companies.

You could have far more spending power at United than somewhere like Newcastle or City for that matter

Newcastle would put them in a position where they couldn't elevate themselves to compete without an incredible manager and recruitment team

FFP makes you wonder about Everton too given their spending
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,413
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
They would undoubtedly add to that with ridiculously high sponsorship deals from Saudi owned companies.
I think you're missing my point there. The point I was making is that with United, they wouldn't have to.

If they took over the club and promised to spend our budget to take us back to the pinnacle then they wouldn't have to use Saudi owned companies. Adidas, Nike and co would spend an absolutely obscene amount of money on a sponsorship deal with United if they knew that the £150m, £200m+ they were giving us each season went directly into the transfer kitty and saw us sign a marquee player or two every summer.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
I think you are spot on here on the Newcastle point and that we are the most attractive option

We already have amongst the worlds highest revenue streams. They would undoubtedly add to that with ridiculously high sponsorship deals from Saudi owned companies.

You could have far more spending power at United than somewhere like Newcastle or City for that matter

Newcastle would put them in a position where they couldn't elevate themselves to compete without an incredible manager and recruitment team

FFP makes you wonder about Everton too given their spending
The problem with United or any club that is that expensive is that it's still not worth it if you can't/don't put a lot of money on top of it. Money is a way to mitigate the need for extreme competency in a very competitive environment, the issue is that these rich owners aren't particularly competent, they aren't head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to sport management skills or have the ability to identify who is. If anything the City case could be a deterrent for any expensive purchase.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,740
I think you're missing my point there. The point I was making is that with United, they wouldn't have to.

If they took over the club and promised to spend our budget to take us back to the pinnacle then they wouldn't have to use Saudi owned companies. Adidas, Nike and co would spend an absolutely obscene amount of money on a sponsorship deal with United if they knew that the £150m, £200m+ they were giving us each season went directly into the transfer kitty and saw us sign a marquee player or two every summer.
no I understood- I was just thinking of us spending Neymar/MBappe money which, with our current revenues, might not be feasible

revenues were 627 last year but I think I've read these are going to tumble. The next 2 financials won't have any CL money most likely and I think the corporate side of things have plateaued

suppose it depends on how they want to spend it. Last year revenues were 627 million but we only made a profit of 18.8 million
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,413
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Last year revenues were 627 million but we only made a profit of 18.8 million
It was actually £50m operating profit and part of that was due to us having to write off an additional £50m in tax differed from a previous year due to the new corporate tax rate in America, plus Mourinho's payoff.

Our finances are a complicated mess currently, it has to be said.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
13,740
The problem with United or any club that is that expensive is that it's still not worth it if you can't/don't put a lot of money on top of it. Money is a way to mitigate the need for extreme competency in a very competitive environment, the issue is that these rich owners aren't particularly competent, they aren't head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to sport management skills or have the ability to identify who is. If anything the City case could be a deterrent for any expensive
It was actually £50m operating profit and part of that was due to us having to write off an additional £50m in tax differed from a previous year due to the new corporate tax rate in America, plus Mourinho's payoff.

Our finances are a complicated mess currently, it has to be said.
I suppose the upside is there would be no more loan servicing payments or dividends - I'd say that is a fair old amount each year
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
I suppose the upside is there would be no more loan servicing payments or dividends - I'd say that is a fair old amount each year
It's not actually that much money and a part of is tax deductible, so if you go to zero your taxes increase. You are basically talking about at best 30 something millions between dividends and finance costs. It wouldn't change our world at all.
 

Snuffkin

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Messages
671
You've seen the problem with buying a small club like City. They will struggle to get the fans to increase turnover. Uefa will never give them a break. Man utd is the big one we'll be sold soon.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
21,608
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
This City makes some good points, and there are concerns. but I'd say for every 1 fan like him at City that is not happy with things, there are 1000 who are very happy to be winning titles and having a team packed with superstars. Is the gap really widening between the top few and the rest? In the 90's it was only Arsenal or Utd who could win the league. Just 4 years ago, a team with odds of 5000/1 won the league. You have the likes of mid-table clubs like Wolves, Everton, West Ham etc who have squads packed with big names such as Ruben Neves and Felipe Anderson. Maybe it's Guardiola's tiki-taka style that is making the matches boring for some of their fans? In most games they have 95% possession and just pass other teams off the park effortlessly, and yes that is pretty tedious on the eye. I don't hear Liverpool fans saying the same about Klopp's style.
Leeds were in old Division 2 in 1990 and won Division 1 (before changed name to PL) just two seasons later.

But has got rarer yes.

There was some challenge though... apart from the usual ones (Liverpool, Arsenal), there was Blackburn (won league), Sheffield Wednesday.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
You've seen the problem with buying a small club like City. They will struggle to get the fans to increase turnover. Uefa will never give them a break. Man utd is the big one we'll be sold soon.
We'll be sold in stages. Like the recent reports suggest, we'll sell 20%, then probably another 20% and so forth. It helps absolutely no one to sell at once, not even the Glazers. Just imagine the tax they would have to pay on the gains they make from a full blown sale.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
Oh god instead of having red faced accountant as the figurehead of united its going to a murdering saudi prince.
 

Adnan

Talent Spotter
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
29,865
Location
England
Lazy ass journalism, if you can call it that since it is from The S*n. Basically coming off the back of us releasing our financial reports, has no quotes whatsoever.
The original report is from a Newcastle based outlet.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
I really can't see a full blown buyout. Saudi will invest in us, via PIF imo. Just in small chunks.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
Honestly, the best (realistic) form of ownership is somebody who does run us well as a business and stays the hell away from the footballing side. I'd prefer not to be a rich guys plaything.

Probably the biggest issue I have with the Glazers is that they are doing a shit job in terms of running us as a business, namely by keeping a CEO who is doing a terrible job. Our failure on the field and all the economics directly related to that has cost the club a huge amount of money with wasted transfer money and wages, potential revenue growth gone wasted, and ultimately the club is probably worth at least half a billion pounds less (perhaps closer to a billion) than what it would be if we'd been run correctly and stayed at the top of the field. Yes it's worth a hell of a lot more than what it was when they first took over, but we're seeing other clubs grow faster and that is only going to increase as we rely purely on the 'name' of our brand. Obviously it doesn't matter to us what our club is 'worth', but that's what the owners should be looking at and why I don't understand what the Glazer's are doing since they are supposed to be businessmen.

Somebody running us properly would look to have the best CEO possible in that role, and under him would have the best specialists possible. Instead we are up to seven years of things not working and as far as we can see nothing has been changed near the top echelons of the clubs decision making.
They’re doing a phenomenal job of running the club as a business. That’s the problem.
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,810
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
They’re doing a phenomenal job of running the club as a business. That’s the problem.
Yes they are making money. But only because they own a club where it would be impossible for them not to. As I said in the post you quoted, the club would be worth a massive amount more (and therefore they'd be worth a hell of a lot more) if it were being run properly. They certainly are not doing a phenomenal job of running it as a business.