It would be good if you listen to your own advice then.
NB: Radcliffe controls 'only' around 70% of the company. The company has two other shareholders (and just had an investment from Saudi Arabia, so they might now own some part of company too).This is exactly what is winding me up so much. People assume they know what’s going on and make scenarios in their head to get irate about.
Worse still it then gets parroted all over social and becomes ‘fact’.
That decision will have been made by Arnold and co surely? It’s been written that they are being kept completely isolated from the takeover and it is business as usual.
State backed = State Owned?
Two guys with a minority share isn’t going to stop Ratcliffe from running his own company the way he sees fit. If he says ‘lads, we’re buying United’ they will say “ok boss, no problem!!”
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why are you so aggressive and abusive? I recommend you go drink some tea and calm down.Are you lot playing stupid?
no shit a Scandinavian poll is only representative of Scandinavia.
What the holy feck
I dont like Terry normally but this is absolutely spot on.
Of course it does. They are his business partners. Even if it didn't then there are many other external factors that come to play like for example banks who lend money to INEOS. Would they be happy seeing him spending their money in a real life Football manager? I very much doubt it. Its also pretty uncharacteristic from SJR to do that as well. The man is all about sustainability and being able to turn a desert (ie a run down business) into a fertile field. That had worked magnificently in his line of business. However he wasn't able to perform that same magic with his football clubs
I called you Sherlock Holmes because of course it’s only representative of Scandinavia man. It’s a Scandinavian poll, polling Scandinavian fans.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s complete guesswork in order to generate clicks. That’s what “journalists” do.
Eh? The banks only care that:
What increase has there been?
Reading it it’s basically saying any new owner can’t spend more than the Glazers this summer regardless due to FFP.
Isn't that what you are doing when commenting on Qatar?This is exactly what is winding me up so much. People assume they know what’s going on and make scenarios in their head to get irate about.
Worse still it then gets parroted all over social and becomes ‘fact’.
The line people draw can be really odd. But yeah it's all full of shit. The world is full of shit.
Let's start from the Glazers bid. United were a gold mine. It was the biggest brand name in the most popular sports in the world that had no rules whatsoever that protected such clubs from any vultures that wanted to exploit it. Kudos to evil ginger Teddy bear for going into it first.
Yes.
Okay by that logic, Arsenal, Real Madrid are state owned?
Not sure I’ve actually commented on Qatar all that much, most of my posts are concerning INEOS and the inaccuracies that surround them. Can you provide an example?
We literally aren’t in danger of failing FFP. This is honestly nonsense based on that alone.
Attention seeking nonsense.
No, because a sponsor does not own the club. As far as I am aware Sheik Jassim wants to BUY the club, not SPONSOR it.
Sheik Jassim has nothing to do with the state though. Can you tell me what role he serves in the governance or state of Qatar?
5% on season tickets. anybody reaching the 65 year old concession band also will now only get 25% discount, not 50%.
I have been a CEO for the last six years and will echo these sentiments about what banks care about. I’ve not been involved with anything like this level of finance but at various times I have been on the hook for over 20m to a single bank. That became particularly challenging during the pandemic, and what became clear in that time was that there were a plethora of factors that went into their thinking, one of which was the political cache of investing in a project like ours. That bought us a lot more leverage when it came time to negotiating deferrals.
Because of our income.
Stupid pointless tweet. Nobody is gonna say otherwise no matter what the reality is. Imagine "Oh yes we're gonna flood the transfer market with mad oil money on day 1 even though we're probabaly getting fired next month. Come take our trousers down Dortmund and West Ham"
Don't you think it would be an issue for INEOS to keep asking billions of pounds for something with a minimum ROI?
Another way to look at it is that the new group may have asked them to do it now, to take the flak for it as they are leaving anyway. That way the new owners can come in and freeze prices at a higher level and not take any heat for raising them. The other option is that they asked the outbound Glazers to raise them, so they can come in and immediately reduce them to win some points with fans. I don’t see the Glazers having any problems doing this if it was part of negotiating the sale price they wanted.
