I'm hoping it's just paper talk and rumours however it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it came to fruition.
The Saudi Takeover Rumor Thread
- Thread starter C3Pique
- 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.
- Status
Yeah it's a really big ask from any private person or group. To put into perspective, you could double the amount the sheiks claim to have pumped into City since 08 and it still wouldn't be enough to buy United. Only oil money can buy the club and still have enough for transfers
Think it's rumour speculation based on the deal we just made with them. Barca have a similar deal to promote Saudi talent so it's not impossible that's all it was.
I agree at this stage but it can't be ruled out. It would be a sad day in the clubs history if it does happen, that's for sure.
Morally it's a horrific prospect, but our noisey neighbours are living proof that in the footballing world, morals have gone out the window.
Havent really thought about it , when put like this I guess not..
Erm, I thought you bought Cantona and Ronaldo. Scholes came through the club though. Thing is, your current owners appear to be getting tight with the purse strings. I'm not sure why, but you would have to assume their offloading
Those players were part of the normal course for us though. We wouldn't accept owners like the Saudis just to continue what we are used to.
Eh? We burn through money every window. The summer gone was an odd one, but we'll be spunking money again in the summer I've no doubt about that.
That's not the Saudis..
That's UAE.
Also, I never get how someone can get caught/accused of spying and why you'd even be a spy. What exactly can you spy on? All government facilities are behind closed doors/gated, what are you gonna achieve by looking at the front door?
Unless of course you were working as a scientist at Area 51 or something while spying. What good is being a college student with no access to restricted areas?Mad off topic but always baffled by it..
Unfortunately, us fans don't get to choose the owners. Our owners, that's yours and ours, will all sell if the right deal is offered. So, if United are now worth £3bn and the Glazer family are offered £4bn, they're selling. How many shirts would you need to sell to earn £4bn? It would take forever.
In the last Jan window, we got Sanchez on the cheap. But we are paying a high wage (I will accept that).
In the Summer window, we were outspent by half the teams in the league.
When we finished 6th, we did spend.
But when we finished 2nd, we did not spend.
When we finish in the top 4 - we are reluctant to spend.
When we finish outside the top 4 - we spend.
Is this pattern?
We didn't got Sanchez on the cheap. We basically paid Mkhitaryan's market value for 6 months of Sanchez's contract and we then paid a big sign in on fee and a massive wage.
And we spent big when we were in the top 4 under LVG, so no there is no pattern. We simply spent more time outside of top 4 than inside it.
Last edited:
When saying we, i mean the fans. I doubt the Glazers care whose money they take.
We saved mkh 's contractual wages of his remaining contract as well though .
I don't really understand your post.
Are we paying Sanchez in skittles?
We didn't save wages by swapping Mkhitaryan, his wages were just reallocated to go towards Sanchez's salary.
We bought him for 27 m and were obligated to pay him suppose 28m over his 4 year contract, out of which he lasted only a year and half, and we saved his supposed 17.5 m payment over next 2 and half year of his remaining contract, Sold him on a swap deal for sanchez transfer who was valued by arsenal for 35 m and took his wages suppose 80 m on a 4 year period on our wage bill, the net costs loaded on to us with sanchez wages might be around 80- (8 m value inflated on mkh sale plus his wages saved around 17.5m) around 53 m for a 4 year period. For a player like sanchez back then it was incredible value(sadly it never worked out until now).
I hate math...
Of course we dint save his wages, but we adjusted them in sanchez wages calulations.
That's an incredible stretch. I'll make it fairly simple, if you evaluate Mkhitaryan at 27m then that's what we spent to purchase a 6 month contract and bear in mind that we were free to offer him a contract without giving anything to Arsenal. 27m for 6 months isn't cheap at all and that's without considering the signing in on fee and the massive wage.
Kinda wishing this thread would get locked now as every time I see it moved up to top of the threads list, I think there is some actual breaking news, but it's beginning to look like there is nothing to this story. Everything has gone quiet from the so called media 'sources'
I get what your saying but the net effect on our finances with sanchez purchase is slightly more than 13 m a year for 4 years. That's fairly cheap for a player he was.
We payed 27 m to buy his 6 month contract while arsenal payed 35 m for mkh 2.5 years of contract. That's down to the difference in valuation of both players had they had same length of contracts. Both parties got an incredible deal, and city were unable to offer arsenal such a deal.
And Robinho thought he was signing for Chelsea. The Sheik bought City off the corrupt Tamsin for a published £210m in 2008. He has put £1.3BILLION of his own money into the club and has an iou with the football group. He was rumoured to want Liverpool or Newcastle but they had no land available which is what he really wanted.
Yes lorry loads of money appeared from a corrupt country with shocking human rights and no City fan complained. Politicians support City and serve on the Council and moan about austerity but not their paymasters. Jim Radcliffe wonbuy United, he only buys sure fire certs which we are not. Guardiola will move on and the City Football group will continue to move money all over the World avoiding taxes and UEFA rules. Even if the Saudi’s bought United they would have to conjure up some fake sponsors like City to get by UEFA rules. I don’t think the likes of Yaya or Silva would be in Manchester if it wasn’t for their published salary , maybe they also had ‘Consultants’ jobs like Mancini. Ten years of the Sheik, £3 billion and counting and no CHAMPIONS LEAGUE.
Correct. No right thinking City fan, or for that matter any football fan, will deny that a shed load of money, helps a club to sign great players and achieve success.
Fortunately for us, we got lucky being chosen. It could have been anyone.
I think of Villa, the biggest club in this country's second city, and their owner cannot find a buyer because of FFP rules. It just doesn't seem right. Those rules need binning and let everyone have a go.
Fortunately for us, we got lucky being chosen. It could have been anyone.
I think of Villa, the biggest club in this country's second city, and their owner cannot find a buyer because of FFP rules. It just doesn't seem right. Those rules need binning and let everyone have a go.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's where many will completely disagree. I wouldn't consider it luck, it would put me off entirely. Likewise, contrary to what you'd want to see, I'd much rather see a strengthening of the rules and complete transparency in how they are applied. If the City/PSG trend extends to many more clubs football is over.
Not everyone looking to buy a club is like Abu Dhabi or Qatar and seemingly in it for the long haul. In fact oWithout FFP someone could come in buy a club chuck a load of money on transfers and wages and then get bored and feck off. Leaving the club with huge salaries and transfer fee installments they can't pay, look at Leeds or Malaga.
City and PSG have been getting around FFP with their sponsorships deals, no reason other clubs owners can't do the same. At least then if the Owners feck off theres still some guaranteed money from the sponsorship deals coming in for a few years.
I used to see it this way to an extent but what's the actual point? The US might be a more civilized place in general. But they've committed plenty of atrocities over the last 50 years. Just because it's not a journalist entering an embassy but rather a family with children in Syria/Iraq, it is viewed differently. And United are an English club. Do we really need to speak about England's bloody and shocking colonial past and how many deaths/much suffering and injustice that caused?
My main problem with this would be us becoming the same as a City or PSG. We should, IMO, like Barcelona and Madrid build great teams without foreign investment. The Glazers own us but don't really have the muscle to add further funds to the amount we generate, which suits me fine in a way.
The Glazers, contrary to what this thread will have you believe, do not run the United States of America. And if you decide that what happened a long time ago as opposed to right now is relevant then no one can own us. It's just whubery.
Or anyone can.
But that's a fair point. I imagine a big Saudi Oil corporation (if this exists) would be fine?
I wouldn't think so. The chance of them being involved directly in human rights abuses would be damn high given it's OK in that part of the world. Plus there's probably a good amount of money to be made from treating your
I agree with your second paragraph.
Sir Richard Branson(?)
Instead they keep on restructuring the debt.
He's not got enough money to compete with the almighty petrodollars of Man City and PSG.
It's a very interesting question though, I guess I'd be delighted if Bill Gates decided he'd had enough of pumping his money into vaccine research and fancied owning a football team!
In all seriousness though, if I woke up tomorrow and the Saudi's had bought United, I'd just have to accept it. What's the alternative?
I wouldn’t accept it. I’d just continue following United while feeling a bit empty and wretched.
Not sure if England as a country wants to spend money on transfers for United.
Any success that came as a result of a Saudi takeover would feel hollow and dirty, yet you cannot realistically stop supporting a club you have followed since childhood. We'd be stuck with them.
City fans understand this feeling better than most I'd wager.
- Status