That seems a bit excessively negative in its interpretation to me.Who knows what they were planning?
The deal was, the fans get the Red Knights the club, and only then would they reveal what they were going to do with it.
It was an attempted mug-off from start to finish. It failed miserably mind; very embarrassing for all involved.
The logic from the Knights seemed to be something like this:
- The Glazers are making a lot of money from owning the club
- We can't afford the club
- We'll convince the fans that the Glazers are running the club into the ground
- We'll then convince the fans that the best way to remedy this would be to themselves run the club into the ground
- Once the club's fecked up then we might be able to afford it
- With luck then we'll be making a lot of money from owning the club
Fortunately, though many were duped by this bullshit, the plan failed. It then turned out that, what a shock, the Glazers were not afterall the antichrists that the fans had been led to believe they were.
A good result.
Cider starts his post with "Who knows what they were planning?"That seems a bit excessively negative in its interpretation to me.
The legal position is simple. You are allowed to insult anyone you want so long as your behaviour isn't causing harrassment, alarm or distress. Playground name calling is fine, even using proper names. What you are not allowed to do is spread lies about named individuals in an attempt to sully their reputation.Duncan Dildo
My lawyers have advised me I'm within my rights to use the term in the public arena up to but not exceeding five times a month, but only if I make no direct reference to Duncan [surname removed for legal purposes] in the same sentence or string or sentences.
This is a private forum. Opinions can be put forward without insults and name calling. I'm sure Niall is not too keen to start another round of emails to resolve issues so Cider can have a play on words. In fact, I suggest Cider refrains from using such insults or I will personally make sure he gets banned from this part of the forum.The legal position is simple. You are allowed to insult anyone you want so long as your behaviour isn't causing harrassment, alarm or distress. Playground name calling is fine, even using proper names. What you are not allowed to do is spread lies about named individuals in an attempt to sully their reputation.
What evidence do you have of this?And the other thing people liked about the Red Knights. They were a group of rich finance types, yes, but they were Manchester United fans. I wouldnt want to quantify the value of this or overstate its importance. But it does give you some comfort to know that the owners at least watch football and want the best for the club on the field, not just on the bottom line.
Of course, that's the long and short of it.Cider starts his post with "Who knows what they were planning?"
Basically he is admitting assumptions and guesswork.
As you well know I spread no lies about anybody.The legal position is simple. You are allowed to insult anyone you want so long as your behaviour isn't causing harrassment, alarm or distress. Playground name calling is fine, even using proper names. What you are not allowed to do is spread lies about named individuals in an attempt to sully their reputation.
Do you mean how do I know they were fans, or how do I know people liked that about them?What evidence do you have of this?
Here you are ignoring Ralphie's point above, which is the absence of a correlation between protest and on-pitch performance. You are implying this is some kind of spoilt, knee jerk reaction to failure. When there is no evidence it is that at all. It is the idea that someone is jeapordising the future of the club, its wealth and thereby its dominance - for their own, very personal gain. It is the stories about the Glazer sons pocketing millions for consulting fees which rile me most, and I imagine others too. Some owners pump money into football clubs they buy, ours pump money out. Sure, things are fine on the football pitch now, and I am certainly not sitting here hoping for a sugar daddy - we dont need one. But it would be nice to not have to support these fecks' failing property empire in America, and even nicer to have some kind of formalised fan ownership.I was just wondering if this group had any plans for the future, geebs. All this crap will resurface if we have a poor run of results again, obviously it'll all be the fault of the owners; I'm curious as to what MUST etc. have in store for us next time.
The former: what evidence did we have to suggest that the Red Knights were United fans at all? None as far as I can tell.Do you mean how do I know they were fans, or how do I know people liked that about them?
If the former: no evidence per se, but they were always reported to be fans: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/02/red-knights-manchester-united
If the latter: I dont this either, I was inferring that point, I actually have no evidence at all of what other people think. I was speaking about my personal opinion on it and extrapolating that perhaps other people who were similarly upbeat about the prospect had arrived at that judgement in the same way I did.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the protests were the direct result of a run of poor results. Most notably the fact that the protests abruptly stopped when we won the league. How can you say there's no correlation? When results got better the protests disappeared; what more direct correlation could one ask for? Green and Gold till we win the league would have been the correct motto, for the Glazers are still in charge, yet the fans seem appeased.Here you are ignoring Ralphie's point above, which is the absence of a correlation between protest and on-pitch performance. You are implying this is some kind of spoilt, knee jerk reaction to failure. When there is no evidence it is that at all. It is the idea that someone is jeapordising the future of the club, its wealth and thereby its dominance - for their own, very personal gain. It is the stories about the Glazer sons pocketing millions for consulting fees which rile me most, and I imagine others too. Some owners pump money into football clubs they buy, ours pump money out. Sure, things are fine on the football pitch now, and I am certainly not sitting here hoping for a sugar daddy - we dont need one. But it would be nice to not have to support these fecks' failing property empire in America, and even nicer to have some kind of formalised fan ownership.
If your starting off point is the Guardian could have made it up then yes that is possible.The former: what evidence did we have to suggest that the Red Knights were United fans at all? None as far as I can tell.
Yes but that also coincided with the dissipation of the Red Knights offer, as has been mentioned. It was a correlation with the viability of the solution, as I think someone else phrased it.There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the protests were the direct result of a run of poor results. Most notably the fact that the protests abruptly stopped when we won the league.
The Guardian? Why The Guardian?If your starting off point is the Guardian could have made it up then yes that is possible.
Jim O'Neill, the Goldmans guy, I think is widely reported to be a fan, I am pretty sure he at least is.
For the others there is more of a leap of faith. I believe it because it strikes me as believable. A lot of people support United. Some of them work in banks and hedge funds. Why else would such people want to buy a football club? There are easier ways to make money. Their day jobs, for starters.
Only just seen that you added to your original post.The anti-Glazer propaganda about the club being in jeopardy, money running out, debt crippling United etc. turned out to all be bollocks. MUST's goldenboy Andersred personally guaranteed us all on this very site that there would be no money for transfers during the coming seasons; that very next season we spent £60m, then £50m the season after; Andersred hasn't been seen since.
MUST's scaremongering was always gonna be a short term tactic, a select few of us saw it for what it was at the time and tried our best to draw attention to their bullshit, thankfully the fact that they're a bunch of blaggers, clowns and charlatans by now is widely known, but nevertheless the majority of fans are prone to lapses of severe shortening of memory as soon as an few results don't go our way; I wouldn't rule out MUST attempting to regain a stronghold once again in such a situation.
Just because I posted a link to a Guardian article earlier that referred to the RKs as fans, and individually listed some senior people in it - O'Neill, Wace etc, as I mentioned - as lifelong fans. So if they are not fans then the Guardian is lying or not doing basic fact checks.The Guardian? Why The Guardian?
It is my view that in 10-20 years time the majority of United fans will look back to this particular time in our history and recognise it was a glorious chapter in terms of on-field performance, which is by far the most important thing.It's my view that in ten/fifteen/twenty years time the majority of United fans will look back to this particular time in our history and recognise the Glazers as being decent owners.
Jim O'Neill too. They were all United fans, otherwise why put in the money with no serious financial reward?Paul Marshall, the hedge fund guy, is also reported to be a United fan, explicitly, by The Guardian, The Telegraph and the FT, as the top 3 hits when I googled him as a supporter. So I would say that is corroborated. And the Saatchi & Saatchi guy, Richard Hytner, is president of MUST. So fair to assume he is I would have thought.
£550m taken from our club and more to come. We're being raped like a 12 year old girl asking for Jim to Fix It.It's my view that in ten/fifteen/twenty years time the majority of United fans will look back to this particular time in our history and recognise the Glazers as being decent owners. I think that progress is already being made in this regard.
Er... we lost the league.There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the protests were the direct result of a run of poor results. Most notably the fact that the protests abruptly stopped when we won the league.
But just in case it doesn't, I'll bring it up now.I was just wondering if this group had any plans for the future, geebs. All this crap will resurface if we have a poor run of results again, obviously it'll all be the fault of the owners; I'm curious as to what MUST etc. have in store for us next time.
When it comes to discussing the Glazers, this is one point which drives me nuts. You say it as if they're only doing bad. By no means do I defend them, but it's increasingly annoying when we choose just to look at one side of things.£550m taken from our club and more to come. We're being raped like a 12 year old girl asking for Jim to Fix It.
They'll be looked back upon as decent owners is what I said, and SAF will write a few good things about them in his books. That's about as much as football club owners can expect.Which makes it all the more impressive that you predict the Glazers will buck that trend, in 10-20 years. I wonder what they will do to deserve such credit.
To be fair that has also been well covered on here over the years. The whole "if we had all just given a tenner we wouldnt be in this mess" argument.People talk about the Glazers siphoning money out of the club but not enough about the opportunity we had as fans to prevent such a scenario occurring.
There's your reason those debates are not being rolled out again now, I expect.Obviously, it's too late now
Yes, valid point. Again, I think MUST and those who think similarly - even if they have lost patience with that organisation specifically for one reason or another - acknowledge this point emphatically. It is why people are so keen on fan ownership. The RKs said they would give a 51% stake the the fans. If they had followed through on that, and depending on how exactly they did that, it might have been a way to resolve that problem in the future.If the Glazers didn't buy us out, it's quite possible someone else would.
Cant disagree with any of that really. Although I still count myself as a MUST member, so I guess you are also talking about me.At this point in time, there's no viable solutions out there. All I witness is point-scoring, forcing out agendas, extrapolating the facts, fall-out between fans and beating each other over the head with statistics we don't even understand. It's like golden_blunder said, we're expending nervous energy unnecessarily. The desire to be informed often leads many to in fact, become misinformed or misled.
I feel sorry for those who blindly follow MUST simply because they're the only group out there "trying" to do something. Some of them who attend meetings have become such a vile lot and it's an organization I've lost a lot of respect for. It's hard to take someone's point seriously when you know their agenda from the off, even if they know alot about finances. Anyone who fiddles with numbers knows you can make stats say whatever you want. Again, people become misled as a result and instead of having fruitful discussions, it becomes more about who's argument 'sounds' more accurate and driving home the 'facts'. There's an enormous of emotional tension with this issue and it's surprising we are not more careful with our words let alone our arguments.
I do not see how owners who plunge their own debt on a club can be decent owners, regardless of what is won or spent in that time.It's my view that in ten/fifteen/twenty years time the majority of United fans will look back to this particular time in our history and recognise the Glazers as being decent owners. I think that progress is already being made in this regard.
Well, if you can pay for it then there's nothing inherently wrong with debt. The rate of return just needs to be higher than the interest payments; you'll find that many huge corporations run signficant debts.I do not see how owners who plunge their own debt on a club can be decent owners, regardless of what is won or spent in that time.
You're not alone, many still don't see it. MUST have offered so much absolute shite on the matter, for a while with an agreeable and widespread audience, that it's going to take a few years before the reality of the situation really sinks in for many fans.I do not see how owners who plunge their own debt on a club can be decent owners, regardless of what is won or spent in that time.
Also relevant to look at what the debt has been used for.Well, if you can pay for it then there's nothing inherently wrong with debt. The rate of return just needs to be higher than the interest payments; you'll find that many huge corporations run signficant debts.
I'm not advocating what the Glazers do, by the way, but I'm simply pointing out that debt is only a problem when you can't pay it anymore.
Perhaps. Depends if you fit the bill I listed above. From my impressions on here, you seem to be one of the few reasonable ones.Cant disagree with any of that really. Although I still count myself as a MUST member, so I guess you are also talking about me.