Fair enough, I'd hate for some horrendous regime to buy and use Man Utd personally, regardless of their investment.
Newcastle United now owned by the PIF | PL receives "legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control NUFC" ;)
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
am i way off the mark here, but the 320bn is what their assets are worth, and not what they actually have available to spend so to speak. So on paper they're worth it, but they dont have it physically available.
I really dont think we'll see another psg happen for example, buying up global stars
I really dont think we'll see another psg happen for example, buying up global stars
Wishful thinking.
Man Utd makes enough money on its own to compete at the highest level. It just needs owners that aren’t financial parasites that make bizarre, laughable footballing decisions.
Utd just need to be freed from the Glazers - the club doesn’t need to be bankrolled, simply freed.
Whoever does that, I’ll be glad.
I'd prefer if the club wasn't owned by a group that have cut up people and treat women like second hand citizens but you do you.
Im sure its only worth 320bn on paper. i know the bin salman fella is worth about 5bn individually.
No doubt theyll spend, but it'll be on middle tier players IMO. Like, Xhaka, Lingard (no offence), Barkley, etc. Kane's, Haalands, etc, not a chance
How do you know the future owners of Utd will do that…?
Id really doubt he has £320bn lying around but that won't be any issue, this is a team of owners who is worth over 10 times what Cities owner is.
It will be interesting to see their approach, they are much more likely to take the City 09-12 or Chelsea 04-06 way of spending a fortune on many very good player than going out bringing in Mbappe and co. or something. I'd say one marquee signing and then many £70m signings around that, in Chelseas day £18-25m likely got you what £60-80m does today and when Citiy were catching up it was many £40-60m players. I think we'll see the same at Newcastle, alot of players in the Sancho, Dias price range at first. Neither City or Chelsea ever really went out and bought a real galactico, Cities closest being Grealish and he's miles from being an Mbappe, Neymar etc..
Whats also interesting is we seem to be entering an era where top players are running down their contracts to get big moves on the cheap and pocket the difference themselves. PSG literally hoovering up players like this and I'd say you'll see something similar with tons of players in the future. Looking like Rudiger, Pogba and Sterling are all kinda doing the same. They know leaving on a free is better for their pockets long term so Newcastle might be able to get some good talent early and with little transfer fee.
Last edited:
Compare their assets to your owners. He has spent massively and is a drop in the ocean to them.
Donny to Newcastle for 40m?
You’re kidding yourself if you think this won’t be City on steroids. Give them 5 years.
At the point of City’s takeover, Newcastle were/are far more popular and well known overseas.
Newcastle were in the Champions League on a couple of occasions in the early-mid 00’s and tonnes in the UEFA Cup. Not comparable to City in 2008 at all, who’d been in 1 UEFA Cup (qualified through fair play) and zero Champions League/EC for over 30 years.
Last edited:
Surely gas, nuclear and coal?
but your club is still happy to take money of them in the form of sponsorship
One noob question. How come Newcastle has a huge fanbase?
Newcastle has about 300 thousand population, metropolitan area about 1.5. So its huge cause of the whole area and they dont have a rival in that area?
They're not as popular in the rest of the country I presume?
Newcastle has about 300 thousand population, metropolitan area about 1.5. So its huge cause of the whole area and they dont have a rival in that area?
They're not as popular in the rest of the country I presume?
Doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy with the current ownership but I'd expect that kind of whataboutery from a City fan.
Correct. I've never met a Newcastle fan that wasn't a geordie.
That'll change in a few years perhaps!
What’s the odds this has started moving again because the government have leant on the Premier League to keep the Saudi’s sweet in exchange for gas?
Yeah, maybe you'll se a ton of them in London in the near future.
This is the part that people seem to be oblivious to. Over the passage of time our brand becomes more tainted. Other high profile options like City emerge and have continued success which will eventually make our past success irrelevant to all but older fans or those from families that are die hard United fans and sure enough, our huge revenue will be slashed and we risk moving down not only in the league, but in stature and size too.
what is? All I said were if I were the Saudi's wanting to buy a club that was a sleeping giant I'd have gone for Leeds over Newcastle.
Doesn't mean I'm any less a United fan by saying that does it?
Interesting thought and I wouldn't be surprised if there was something to it.
we'll be pushing up daisy's before that happens, it'll be 10-15 years before City even begins to make a slight dent into United and Liverpool's fan base, probably even longer for Newcastle as globally they're starting from more or less scratch.
Interesting its that way at home, honestly 10 years ago you'd see far more Newcastle shirts than Chelsea around Ireland and till about 2-3 years ago more than City. In fact in the adult population you probably still see more Newcastle shirts in the over 30's than Chelsea and City combined. I guess its to do with that Keegan rivalry in the 90's.
Maybe not in person but I'm almost certain we've posted at each other over the last 20 years and I'm as horribly American as they come.
There are dozens of us!!
Last edited:
First time I've heard this expression.
Wouldn't put it past this government
They don't share the city with another club, and it's a pretty large city, so they monopolise the local fanbase. They haven't won anything of note in about 5 decades, so naturally they haven't picked up (m)any fans outside Newcastle or people with connections to Newcastle.
Clubs in other cities like Bristol, Nottingham, Birmingham etc all have to share the locals between each other.
Agree this is one argument I find super funny. "You have no fans and you'll never have no fans but eventually you are gonna steal our fanbase." United lost no fans in the era of Chelsea and Liverpool managed to maintain their fanbase over 30 years of failure. Those clubs have nothing to worry about globally. The kids who will come to support City/Newcastle are of this generation and they are likely globablly to come from parents who support the Evertons, Spurs, Arsenals of the world than the Uniteds and Liverpools. Its exactly why City's fanbase growth hasn't exploded (well that and Bluemoon chasing them away by screaming "Rag" and chasing them with a mop)
Also another factor is kids these days are more interested in players than clubs. Neymar is a bigger deal than PSG, KDB than City, I'd say even CR7 to United in the eyes of many "Fifa" kids. I'd be very interested to compare the fanbase growth between PSG and City to compare the Galactico policy of PSG vs Cities.
How do you define pressure? Causing more protests and uproar amoung supporters?
That was rendered irrelevant the moment 10k of your fans lined their pockets for a dead rubber never mind packed out the ground for your opener vs Leeds or for Ronaldo's homecoming.
Owners are hard to get out as it is but if you even want there to be a chance of getting The Glazers out a significant number of fans have to start boycotting matches, merchandise etc and hit them where it truly hurts because cash is the only language people like that understand.
On top of the cash owners are now permitted to inject into the clubs now. We get the opposite. It's not just what they take out, it's what they don't put in.
Not to mention we don't operate to our fullest potential as it stands anyway regardless of not having the input of cash from a wealthy owner.
If only Hitler was around now, all he would have to do would be to the buy a football club devoid of success and can make people forget about the horrendous and downright shocking human rights that the Saudis represent by buying a few players and buying success.
Fully sure with the level of clowns in fanbases that you would have people fully defending him If he did!
Fully sure with the level of clowns in fanbases that you would have people fully defending him If he did!
But what comes next will shock you!
That's the point though. We've always done our best work buying young and developing them.
The stars route hasn't really worked out for us. This is going to be even harder now with even more top competition.
There will always be plenty of players out there though, it's just about getting the right ones and developing from there.
I think incompetence at executive level is a more worrying aspect of their reign, I am not discounting the financial aspect entirely but we have spent as much as City and all the other big spenders in world football for little to no return because we lack vision and decisiveness at the top. Obviously this Saudi takeover will push up prices and wages for top players so it will have an effect as clubs will need more just to compete but we weren't getting back to the top regardless.
Gonna call a spade a spade here and mean no offence but the Glazers for all their shit have at least assembled the 2nd most expensive squad in the history of world football. One Donny Van de Beek cheaper than Cities. Of all the American owners and I get they have fecked you guys over, they have been far better (at least when pressured) than FSG and Kroenke at their respective clubs. While they are by no means great owners, I think its fair to say they are at least spending, the other US owners are much bigger leeches imho. Not that thats anything for you guys to celebrate but at least in player recruitment the Glazers have allowed you to use money earned to upgrade the squad.
FSG are robbing Liverpool blind given their turnover and their lack of investment is criminal whilst they are using a world class manager to hide it (kinda like what the Glazers did early days with Sir Alex). If City are currently living within current FFP guidelines (despite where the sponsorship money comes from) then Liverpool and Arsenal can easily spend a lot more and are choosing not to.
At least the Glazers are allowing on the pitch investment if not spending to your full potential or any of their own money.
People are reacting like they can go out tomorrow and buy a whole new team. They simply cannot go out and just spend the vast sums needed to get to the big players needed to get to the top. That's why I think they will end up more like Everton and have a squad full of mediocre over priced players
They had great kit.