10 Sep 2026 13:44:31
From the Telegraph: Since SAF and Gill retired, City have generated almost £350m more in Champions League revenue (prize and TV rights) than us. That's 3 Elliot Anderson's.
It's really depressing how badly the club has been managed. Woodward's misguided arrogance fits the definition of hubris.
10 Sep 2026 15:54:11
Add to that, the interest we have paid on the leveraged debt to purchase the club, and you can see the impact that has been made on the success of the club over that period.
An average of £50-60m more a year available for player purchases, or even keeping the stadium up to date!
10 Sep 2026 16:57:31
Worst thing that ever happened to United was Woodward, not just for this appalling arrogance at the way he ran the club but also it was he that helped the Glazers snatch control.
Hopefully in a few years his stain will have been washed away.
In the meantime I just hope the penny pinching rat realises he will not win the bigger prizes shopping at Aldi and popping down to the market.
You need the best to compete at the top and we are still a fair way off that.
10 Sep 2026 19:53:20
Whilst Ratcliffe enables the Glazers and leaves the debt in place, we will not achieve the success most want.
10 Sep 2026 21:50:01
I'm always amazed at the pass SAF gets, he played ball with the Glazers every step of the way, and got 2 million a year in return, not to mention the fact that his greed over a racehorse was a large part of the reason we ended up with the Glazers in the first place.
10 Sep 2026 23:38:16
Red Man, what is it you're expecting Ratcliffe to do? The Glazers didn't want to sell out. They wanted an investor. At least he's wrested away day-to-day control.
The only way the debt can go down quickly is if the club is recapitalized. More shares would have to be issued, which would have the effect of further diluting the Glazers' control, which they seem reluctant to do.
It's probably going to take a total of £6bn to both buy out the current shareholders and then eliminate the debt. It beats me why anyone would invest that amount of money to buy a company that hasn't made a profit in 5 years, and is never likely to make more than £75m in the near future, even if things went perfectly. That's football for you.
11 Sep 2026 01:25:06
Redman wants a sugar daddy. An oil daddy, a tech daddy, to come in and buy the club, clear the debt, and do it all out of their own pocket.
Back in the early 2000s, that was possible. But three figures now are too much for that. It's hard to be patient, but until the right buyers or a restructure are in place to dilute them, then it's a case of make the most of what we have.
Step 1, page 1: get the house in order financially. Improve cash flow. Return to profit.
The difficulty with balancing that 1st short-term priority, and maintaining a competitive team in a market out of all control, is not easy at all.
It won't satisfy many; the spike in the market has made it near impossible. Their target this year is top 5, reduce substantial short-term debt, and be in a better financial position to push hard in key areas next summer.
It's not for the faint-hearted, and some would say gambles have been made; others will think compromises were made, but everyone should understand it is all in order to get the business's 1st short-term priority done, which is to get the house in order.
11 Sep 2026 05:50:17
Bilko,
Correct, all you said. No value in the market came from that acquiescence.
Newname, share sale money goes to the Glazers. It will not do anything for the debt.
TW, I knew you would defend them.
Yes, full sale, and it needs someone who doesn't want to rake profits out of it. The longer the disparity between our model and City's owners' model (without 115 charges exploding), the more they will disappear out of financial sight to us.
We have been over this, but again, you tell us to accept the status quo with the Glazers, and yet you don't want us to believe you are not on the payroll.
Overall, yes, full ownership with a City-type benevolent ownership, with no debt, has to be nirvana, and if that isn't your aim, I question why.
11 Sep 2026 08:45:58
Does anybody on here know of any person in the world ever who has bought a business for an amount of 6 billion pounds and not looked for a return on that investment?
Does anybody know anybody in the world that has 6 billion in cash to buy a business?
Elon Musk does not have 6 billion in cash.
His company, Tesla, may be able to raise financing, but they are a public company and will want returns to please their shareholders. I don't think you have thought this plan through with all your management experience.
11 Sep 2026 08:30:13
Redman i don't have an aim i'm not involved. You have an aim for things your not involved in? Your sim is irrelevant and I'm not defending i'm telling you what I believe their strategy to be.
Ill tell you what redman don't accept it.
Now what's your next move? What are you going to do Mr don't accept it?
11 Sep 2026 08:41:30
So let me get this right. You want someone to pay 6 billion for the club and not take any profit out. Your are delusional and you'll never be happy which is quite amusing actually it sort of pleases me that you'll never be happy, a fan like you doesn't deserve to be imo.
You think i'm on the pay roll ??
Brilliant so funny.
So Mr redman does not accept our owners so Mr redman now that its official and you don't accept them what are you going to do about it?
11 Sep 2026 09:25:46
Tw
You had to do 3 replies because, clearly, you desperately don't want any fans to even consider a future without the parasites owning the club.
11 Sep 2026 12:00:21
You can absolutely criticise INEOS. They've made plenty of mistakes. The management structure, recruitment, some football decisions and the cost-cutting are all fair game. But saying they're basically the same as the Glazers ignores a pretty significant difference in what they're actually doing.
The Glazers bought United using enormous levels of debt, extracted money from the club through interest and dividends, and spent years treating United largely as an asset to generate returns while the stadium, training ground and wider football infrastructure were allowed to deteriorate.
INEOS, whether you agree with all their decisions or not, have actually invested their own money, taken a financial stake and are attempting to restructure a football operation that was already in a pretty poor state. You can argue they're going about parts of the rebuild badly, but that doesn't make them the same people who created the underlying problems.
And this is where I think the argument about INEOS "enabling" the Glazers gets a bit confused.
INEOS aren't the owners of United and they aren't responsible for continually funding the club on behalf of the Glazers. They've invested significant money already, and their responsibility is to protect and increase the value of their own investment.
If you think that INEOS should simply keep putting another £100m or £200m into the club whenever more money is needed, that isn't really a sustainable business model for INEOS, especially if the Glazers do decide to sell up and INEOS are forced to sell also due to the contract and agreement that is in place. The objective has to be to make United financially sustainable, improve the underlying operation and increase the value of the asset.
That doesn't mean INEOS should get a free pass. If INEOS can buy out the Glazers or keep hold of their shares and role but with the Glazers gone, then if in five years we're still making the same mistakes, the football structure is still dysfunctional, Old Trafford is still deteriorating or the new ground isn't up and running or in progress and the club has made no meaningful progress, then absolutely, hold them to account.
But they've inherited a club with an expensive squad, a bloated wage bill, outdated infrastructure and years of poor football management. That isn't something you completely fix overnight.
So I think there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground here, INEOS can be doing a poor job in certain areas without being the same as the Glazers.
You can criticise their decisions without expecting them to endlessly throw their own money at problems they didn't create. And saying they should invest more and more simply because supporters want greater spending isn't necessarily the same thing as saying they're enabling the Glazers.
There's a difference between investing in a business to improve it and continually subsidising it to cover its existing problems. That distinction is pretty important when looking at what INEOS are actually trying to do.