Saudi Takeover - Claim deal done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seven Seas Sardines said:
We basically have to do a Leicester, but with a smaller budget. The scousers definitely didn't sell their soul when they spanked out over 300m on VVD, Alisson, Mane, Salah, Keita and Fabinho.
Click to expand...
Wait, are you saying we have a smaller budget than Leicester City?
sammsky1 said:
Maybe today, but certainly not in the past.

And my point is not aimed only at him, but at every UK person who finds it so easy to condemn Saudi Arabia despite enjoying Saudi oil's contribution to UK society over many decades, and the vast revenues our weapon manufacturing UK Government gets from selling arms to them, some of which that have been used by Saudi on the helpless people of Yemen.

I have serious hatred for Saudi Arabia, but these above issues are not very well thought out and when analysed are deeply hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Honestly, your whataboutism isn't deeply thought out either.

What should a UK citizen do? Move elsewhere on principle? That's not easy for a lot of people. Refuse to pay taxes? You go to prison for that. Vote for another party? As far as you know, they already do, or not vote at all. Lead a violent revolution against the government? Arguably worse than tolerating buying oil and the sale of weapons. Should they say they dislike the government for these actions? Many of them do. Organise protests? There are such protests.

So I'm not quite sure what you expect. Seems to me that for you, simply living in a country disqualifies people from holding certain opinions. Someone can be disgusted with the Saudi regime without having to overthrow his country's government to avoid being branded a hypocrite.
 
Excessive use of smilies
can't believe this thread has run to 18 pages because some no mark from Saudi posted on twitter , and in any case id rather keep with the Glazers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You lot complaining about Saudi are hilarious.. I'm sure none of you use the oil they pump, or wear the clothes made by children in Bangladesh, or use Apple products from Chinese factories with suicide nets. I'm sure you're all active supporters of BDS and are boycotting Chinese made goods because thier country has Muslims in concentration camps. I bet you're all boycotting Indian products and services too because of the Genocide in Kashmir.

Selective outrage is the best kind.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
Because it’s turned into a political train wreck debate.

Was hoping that someone credible that has links to the club like Stone or Peach would have came out and either refuted these claims or said it’s something to keep an eye on.
Click to expand...

Happens every time these links come up :lol:
 
Zlatattack said:
You lot complaining about Saudi are hilarious.. I'm sure none of you use the oil they pump, or wear the clothes made by children in Bangladesh, or use Apple products from Chinese factories with suicide nets. I'm sure you're all active supporters of BDS and are boycotting Chinese made goods because thier country has Muslims in concentration camps. I bet you're all boycotting Indian products and services too because of the Genocide in Kashmir.

Selective outrage is the best kind.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what genocide is. Stop with this nonsense in United forum.
 
Rood said:
I don't know what US stock market rules are on takeover rumours - I'm pretty sure the club would have to officially comment on these rumours if it was UK listed.

My gut feeling is that there is a big Saudi sponsorship deal incoming

Possibly even Aramco as our new shirt sponsor
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FEAM&usg=AOvVaw2XT59A5a7cpMou-bdbhbZu&ampcf=1
Click to expand...
A deal could be done in the back ground unofficially, then made "official" when the time is right / convenient.

They won't do that during the season, it'll be too messy and distracting for the club. IMO if this "IS" true, then it'll be in the summer.
 
manutddjw said:
I’m kind of disappointed in some of our fans. It seems being used as a propaganda tool by an evil regime is perfectly acceptable as long as we can buy Neymar, Mbappe, Oblak, Kane and whoever else they’ve been putting in their XI all over Twitter since this story broke today. And it’s kind of funny too, because we’ve certainly spent like a plastic club since Sir Alex left and we haven’t come near winning the league.

We don’t need to become a Saudi’s bitch or need a galactico in every position to become successful. We need a klopp and with the decent amount we do spend we’d be a force again without selling our souls as a club and individuals.
Click to expand...
New to the caf?
 
How much money could United spend per annum on transfers/wages if the owners cleared the debt * and stopped taking out dividends?

Or, to put it another way, how much money that can be spent on shiny toys does United generate legitimately?

City have gotten where they are through blatant cheating, lest we forget. Their success isn't simply down to having a loaded owner, they have depended on shady sponsor deals, cooking the books, paying "bonuses" through third parties in order to boost the wages of their players and managers, etc.

Obviously, United generate much more money (legit revenue) - but, again, what do the actual numbers look like? If the Saudis take over and simply let the club spend as much as possible (of what it generates legitimately, I say again) on players/wages, how much money are we talking about, realistically?

* Whether that would make sense, financially, is another matter - but for the sake of argument.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
Yep but even in those 2 seasons when we spent a ton of money, we still were nowhere near looking like we were title contenders.

Spending the money isn’t the problem. We could spend this £300M-£400M but there is no guarantee we will spend it wisely as proven in the last number of seasons.

Our problems stem much further than spending money. We don’t have a footballing infrastructure at this club. Woodward doesn’t have a clue on this side other than the sponsorship element. Someone like an experienced DoF would be massive. Someone that can look after the footballing side like a Ragnick, Mitchell, VDS etc.
Click to expand...
yes the issue is that money is inevitably wasted without any planning

we essentially hired 2 completely different architects to handle the development of a building. We shouldn't be surprised when it ends up a shambles.

not sure the desire to get a dedicated DoF is there though we do seem to be developing something albeit at snails pace

at the same time look at some of the teams with a greater net spend than us over the last 2 years... the days of LVG and Jose are long gone - this is austerity united
 
Last edited:
RedDevilRoshi said:
Major meltdown incoming from a couple of posters on here if that is true :lol:
Click to expand...

Lennon7 said:
Knowing our luck it’d be the actual logo ie a massive green and blue monstrosity
Click to expand...

I personally couldn't give a shit who our sponsors are, stopped caring about that a long time ago

Owners is a different story

Adam-Utd said:
A deal could be done in the back ground unofficially, then made "official" when the time is right / convenient.

They won't do that during the season, it'll be too messy and distracting for the club. IMO if this "IS" true, then it'll be in the summer.
Click to expand...

That would be completely against stock market rules
 
Ekeke said:
True. But perhaps the threat of what Saudis do to people that they dont agree with will see us spend the money more wisely
Click to expand...

It's the wise bit you have to focus on. We can all spend the money if given on transfers but if we haven't the foggiest on how to spend it, it will go to waste...just as Ed has.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
How much money could United spend per annum on transfers/wages if the owners cleared the debt * and stopped taking out dividends?

Or, to put it another way, how much money that can be spent on shiny toys does United generate legitimately?

City have gotten where they are through blatant cheating, lest we forget. Their success isn't simply down to having a loaded owner, they have depended on shady sponsor deals, cooking the books, paying "bonuses" through third parties in order to boost the wages of their players and managers, etc.

Obviously, United generate much more money (legit revenue) - but, again, what do the actual numbers look like? If the Saudis take over and simply let the club spend as much as possible (of what it generates legitimately, I say again) on players/wages, how much money are we talking about, realistically?

* Whether that would make sense, financially, is another matter - but for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

Depends if they are ready to break our historic wage structure (50% wage to turnover ratio).

Worth noting that this ratio has been in place preGlazer so it's not a new thing and FFP rules means a lot of clubs are aiming for that kind of ratio nowadays whereas in the past we had ridiculous situations where clubs (eg Chelsea) spent more than their entire turnover on wages
 
Chesterlestreet said:
How much money could United spend per annum on transfers/wages if the owners cleared the debt * and stopped taking out dividends?

Or, to put it another way, how much money that can be spent on shiny toys does United generate legitimately?

City have gotten where they are through blatant cheating, lest we forget. Their success isn't simply down to having a loaded owner, they have depended on shady sponsor deals, cooking the books, paying "bonuses" through third parties in order to boost the wages of their players and managers, etc.

Obviously, United generate much more money (legit revenue) - but, again, what do the actual numbers look like? If the Saudis take over and simply let the club spend as much as possible (of what it generates legitimately, I say again) on players/wages, how much money are we talking about, realistically?

* Whether that would make sense, financially, is another matter - but for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

Divident or not, loan repayment or not i doubt we can spend 300m every year. Assuming Glazer didnt take one penny out our own income generated would probably somewhere 150m (net) on a good day.

We're rich, but not 300m per year transfer kitty rich.
 
Sky1981 said:
Divident or not, loan repayment or not i doubt we can spend 300m every year. Assuming Glazer didnt take one penny out our own income generated would probably somewhere 150m (net) on a good day.

We're rich, but not 300m per year transfer kitty rich.
Click to expand...
You're right. We can do 150mn-175mn a year tops growing at whatever our revenue is growing at wnhile maintaining the current wage ratio
 
Rood said:
I personally couldn't give a shit who our sponsors are, stopped caring about that a long time ago

Owners is a different story
Click to expand...
It is possible to care about more than one things and at different levels, you know
 
Interval said:
You're right. We can do 150mn-175mn a year tops growing at whatever our revenue is growing at wnhile maintaining the current wage ratio
Click to expand...

The divident is around 10 to 15m per year. Hardly noticeable for a club such as united. Pittance.

Debt repayment probably 20? 30?

Glazer has been very considerate in taking dividends, probably because they're still paying the debt. But I don't think without debt and divident (which still should be given whoever the owner is) we're 300m richer every year.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I hate to break this to you, but it won't be anytime soon. it took city a couple of years after poaching the barca staff and squad building. Honestly, you're better off supporting man city instead, they already play beautiful football and are well run, what's stopping you? Even if the saudis took over it would take a few years to put together a galactico squad and get them to gel before we see consistent results. Why make it difficult for yourself?
Click to expand...
To be fair I think we are not too far off challenging, if we were to get five players and played a coherent style we'd be up there. We are not where City were when they won the lottery. The issue with the Glazers is we haven't done enough to build the squad since we finished 2nd, then we needed 3 starters but brought in Fred.

With AWB, Martial, Pogba, De Gea, McT, Maguire, Rashford and Tuanzebe we have the basis to build a team. Just for interest sake, if we brought in another striker and a midfielder in January won't you back us to finish in the top four if they settle? Then bring in Sancho, a LB and an AM in the summer. We would be starting from a stronger base than even Liverpool had when Klopp came in.
 
It looks as though these rumours are false but even so, I do not want United to become another saudi/oil money club. Yes The Glazers are not ideal but I'd still take them over some oil tycoon. Being self sustaining and generating our own money to buy players rather than being handed funds by a rich owner is what seperates us from the likes of City, Chelsea, PSG etc.
 
sglowrider said:
As of January 2007, Saudi Aramco's proven reserves were estimated at 259.9 billion barrels (41.32×109 m3), comprising about 24% of the world total. They would last for 90 years at the current rate of production. 85% of Saudi oil fields found have not been extracted yet.
Click to expand...
That's based on assumptions that fossil fuel consumption will continue at the current rate. They already start hand wringing whenever fuel prices start falling. They've also recently imposed taxes on everything to boost revenues.
 
Zlatattack said:
You lot complaining about Saudi are hilarious.. I'm sure none of you use the oil they pump, or wear the clothes made by children in Bangladesh, or use Apple products from Chinese factories with suicide nets. I'm sure you're all active supporters of BDS and are boycotting Chinese made goods because thier country has Muslims in concentration camps. I bet you're all boycotting Indian products and services too because of the Genocide in Kashmir.

Selective outrage is the best kind.
Click to expand...
You mean the genocide done by Muslims on Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir? I agree, it needs to be mentioned more. Also you forgot to mention the opression in Pakistan and Bangladesh on Hindus. Selective outrage indeed.
 
Sky1981 said:
Divident or not, loan repayment or not i doubt we can spend 300m every year. Assuming Glazer didnt take one penny out our own income generated would probably somewhere 150m (net) on a good day.

We're rich, but not 300m per year transfer kitty rich.
Click to expand...

Per the latest report, published in September, United's revenue was £627m. Which is staggering. But the overall costs were £583m. Most of that is wages £332m) and what I take to be transfer related expenses (amortisation - £129m).

Other costs amounted to £108m - not sure what these are, precisely, nor to what extent they're directly relevant with regard to FFP (wages and amortisation are obviously very relevant).

Also, what is "net interest cost"? Something to do with shares/bonds?
 
Massive Spanner said:
Can't Jeff Bezos or someone buy us instead?
Click to expand...

Billionaire = Shouldn't be allowed to exist.

(I have been reading the politics forum a bit recently and I think anyone rich enough to buy United will fail the redcafe ideological purity test).
 
Interval said:
You're right. We can do 150mn-175mn a year tops growing at whatever our revenue is growing at wnhile maintaining the current wage ratio
Click to expand...
This is something that needs to be posted on every page. For some reason people think we can spend 300m each year by simply being fan/member owned.
 
settembrini said:
Billionaire = Shouldn't be allowed to exist.

(I have been reading the politics forum a bit recently and I think anyone rich enough to buy United will fail the redcafe ideological purity test).
Click to expand...


They won't "get the club" enough.

A lot of United fans have this fantastical dreamworld idea where Ole is our manager, SAF is our CEO/DOF, Bobby Charlton owns the club, the entire starting 11 have come through the academy and the ghost of Matt Busby is the groundsman.
 
BringNaniBack said:
It looks as though these rumours are false but even so, I do not want United to become another saudi/oil money club. Yes The Glazers are not ideal but I'd still take them over some oil tycoon. Being self sustaining and generating our own money to buy players rather than being handed funds by a rich owner is what seperates us from the likes of City, Chelsea, PSG etc.
Click to expand...

I've checked back a few pages but can't see anything, what did I miss?
 
Surely buying United would fit in their recent strategy of opening up and diversifying their presence. I dont think these rumours are BS, it may not be done, but i would be shocked if they were not interested in buying us.

And i find it funny that people cant make a difference between Saudis and the Glazers. As far as i know, the Glazers dont rule the United States. They are businessman and owners only, not politicians with dubious interests and murderers.

The first decade will be fun for the giddy glory hunters on here, then thy will lose interest, like in Football manager when you win most things and cant be bothered after a dozens of seasons.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Can't Jeff Bezos or someone buy us instead?
Click to expand...

Any actual businessmen that buy us are likely to be the same as the Glazers. Buy the club with a LBO, use the money the club makes to service the debt, invest a chunk of it back in the club like we do now (or squander it, if that's what you want to call our transfer dealings). The only difference is they may approach structuring the club differently, DOF etc, but that's neither here nor there. Same with Jim Ratcliffe who United fans were hoping would buy the club. Does anyone really think he would use a quarter of his net worth to buy the club, and then want no money in return and just keep pumping money in?

What most United fans want is a sugar daddy, like PSG or City's owners, they just don't like to admit it.
 
izec said:
The first decade will be fun for the giddy glory hunters on here, then thy will lose interest, like in Football manager when you win most things and cant be bothered after a dozens of seasons.
Click to expand...
We thought city's owners would lose interest quickly as well. Instead, they're continuing to spend and solidify the city empire worldwide.
 
vanderpants said:
can't believe this thread has run to 18 pages because some no mark from Saudi posted on twitter , and in any case id rather keep with the Glazers
Click to expand...

True or not he ain't a no mark is he let's stop with the bollocks.

Just because he ain't well known here.

If he has out this out in the public believe me it's been authorised by the powers that be over there.
 
Cloud7 said:
Any actual businessmen that buy us are likely to be the same as the Glazers. Buy the club with a LBO, use the money the club makes to service the debt, invest a chunk of it back in the club like we do now (or squander it, if that's what you want to call our transfer dealings). The only difference is they may approach structuring the club differently, DOF etc, but that's neither here nor there. Same with Jim Ratcliffe who United fans were hoping would buy the club. Does anyone really think he would use a quarter of his net worth to buy the club, and then want no money in return and just keep pumping money in?

What most United fans want is a sugar daddy, like PSG or City's owners, they just don't like to admit it.
Click to expand...

Except that Bezos is the richest man in the world by some distance and wouldn’t need to use profits to service debt since he would simply buy the club outright. Same with the Saudis for that matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.