A combo of the Glazers and Ratcliffe might be the final straw for the fan base, could be a very toxic club, and I believe that with this in mind they ultimately sell the whole club to Sheikh Jassim.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
You'd like to think he's got a better plan than that.
It's not though, is it. Option a is state owned oil money using the club for sportswashing purposes.
Why would he? Despite the hysterics over the last fifteen years, debt is an established part of the corporate and always involved in corporate acquisitions. Even Musk had to borrow to buy Twitter.
There's no chance we're not saddled under Ratcliffe with at least the same amount of debt as we have now, and like ALL debt incurred to purchase a commodity, it's the commodity that'll pay for it.
Those who think you look at his reported net worth and think he can just go to an ATM and withdraw £5bn and slap it on the table are terribly naive. The financed debt on the club on a multibillion-pound acquisition will make Glazer repayment look like chicken feed.
Why do people keep saying this? Nobody knows his plan. The details haven't been released.
He's not likely to want to see his huge investment fail is he? He's a Utd fan firstly and also he's the richest British person on the planet secondly.
The debt could well be being cleared for all we know. He hasn't said anything.
And option b is private owned oil money for greenwashing.
As if one is better then the other, so instead of arguing about whose got the better ethics as they will both fall foul of most of the average persons ethics/morals you look at the best deal for the club itself.
You can dislike both but still have a preference for the health of the club, it’s a complicated world.
Do do you really think that Ratcliffe is looking to use the club for greenwashing purposes? To what end? It's not like INEOS are always in the news with their reputation in the gutter, is it? Your average Joe (me included) had little idea about what the company did and its ethical implications before he became involved with united. So what reputation exactly is he looking to sanitize with this purchase?
The Qataris on the other hand have everything to gain, reputationally, from the United purchase. Their reputation re human rights is widely known and discussed and a purchase like this would be to repair some damage on that front and build their reputational capital in the west.
The two aren't remotely comparable and your argument is a bad faith one.
From what I've ve gathered Ratcliffe's PR as been atrocious now there are rumours he wants to the two Glazers to stay on with a minority stake. We don't know the details but it's bad optics regardless.
Because we live in the real world. Musk was the richest person in the world yet had to borrow $13bn to buy Twitter with reported quarterly debt payments of $300m.
The acquisition of Twitter represented a far smaller percentage of Musks 'net worth' than Manchester United would Jim Ratcliffe's.
The idea we "don't know" Ratcliffe's deal will involve considerable debt is like standing on the runway at Heathrow and saying we don't know for sure the 747 on the tarmac is planning to get to New York by going up in the fecking air
You don't get it do you, its only a weak point because you are white.
Of course it doesn't matter to you.
Why would it.
Nobody came to your house, decided to move into it, got you to go to work for them for FREE, and then after taking all that they could take, then decided to give you back the house in a terrible state knowing that you didn't have the money or the resources to fix the house back up.
And then the biggest piss take of all, offered you the chance to go and work in their own house, get called all the names under the sun, every day.
But because it was 70 years ago not 100 of years ago like you alluded to. Its Ok
Does that mean that in 60 years time, countries that have stopped slave labour today will be deemed as ok in your eyes.
So please stop telling people that slave labour no matter when it happened is OK, and they should stop complaining. Sounds a bit like white privilege to me
If I kill somebody today, then 60 years from now get caught.
Do you think the justice system will be ok with that and say it was so long ago its cool, we will let you off
Of course not why would they.
Same applies to slavery my man. Stop telling non white people how they should think. Sounds a bit racist to me
Wrong place to raise this discussion, place has proven itself incapable of it on countless occasions. If an ‘ism isn’t overt it doesn’t exist.
The poster I quoted argued that oil money is tainted. I was pointing out both the main bids are “oil money”. On that criteria there’s little difference between them.
Remember the word on him was that he’d made his name being the last guy standing in these deals. He’ll get the deal done and worry about that later.
Of course I do, it’s obviously gonna be of great benefit to own one of the worlds most prestigious sports clubs in the world.
He will use it for greenwashing, he will use it to generate more business for his chemical company more than likely align the two together. He may very well also want to make United the best team he possibly can in the same process.
Taking a billionaire businessman and not expecting him to use an asset he is buying to help further his already successful business is a given if anything.
If he's intending to buy the other two out, it could take ages. There are just too many questions surrounding his bid. What do you think Brophs?
If their deadline has past, then it's probably not. Could equally argue that the brief benefits the Qatari bid more than anyone as it's clearly whipped up the more emotive elements of our fanbase in their favour.
That's my read too. These "deadlines" aren't real. They want the "Ratcliffe values club higher" to try and spook Qataris into throwing more money into the hat.
Why can't the Shiek agree to similar kind of agreement with Glazers. Put an additional obligation to sell their shares within 5 years for so and so amount.
2 bellends will get additional price for their shares. Qataris can implement what they want.
I didn't say he wouldn't use some debt, but not in the same way the Glazers have done, he can't, this is exactly the reason the Glazers are having to get out now.
The clubs turnover can't afford to pay for the team to stay near the top, cover the current debt, and pay a for new stadium, so there is no way Ratcliffe will load the club with even more debt than Glazers have, it would be nonsensical.
The deadline isn't a thing. It's not a legal, contractual process. A busker could set a deadline of 4pm for coins in his hat but if someone with a wad of £50s came up at 4:01 pm he's got saying "geeze dude, I can't accept this, I had a deadline"
Fans want them gone. The idea they're staying in the shadows is winding most up. If Qatar want the club badly enough they'll have to pay up. They don't need to offer them a minority stake. Anything else would be bad PR.
you could. But only one of those possibilities exerts pressure on Qatar to increase their bid. Glazer would sell to Satan himself we’re he to bid a few dollars more let’s be honest.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
exactly. It’s not a transfer window. They have already changed the “deadline” multiple times. Means nothing.
Isn't greenwashing the use of supposedly green marketing and PR to distract from a company's poor environmental practices? If so, unless he covers OT in solar panels or similar, I'm not sure how united would be used for greenwashing
An indisputable fact.
The clubs future is literally at stake here. A lot of people who have made their name/wealth via the club have been far too quiet.
I'll start with the biggest of them all. Sir Alex Ferguson.
He an extent he gets a pass considering what he has done for us but even he isn't untouchable. A lot of people won't like his loyalty being questioned as he's taken on almost a holy figure If he truly loves the club/fans that have given him everything he needs to speak up. He can't just show up to games every week, smile and make a passing comment about the squad every now and then.
Can you imagine the impact if SAF spoke out against the Glazers?
Him and a few other "Legends" can't sit around scratching their a** hoping this will all pass and they'll continue to make an income off their history at the club. TOP figures in and around the club need to speak up now. We will remember who fought for our clubs future and who protected their own interests.
I'll start with the biggest of them all. Sir Alex Ferguson.
He an extent he gets a pass considering what he has done for us but even he isn't untouchable. A lot of people won't like his loyalty being questioned as he's taken on almost a holy figure If he truly loves the club/fans that have given him everything he needs to speak up. He can't just show up to games every week, smile and make a passing comment about the squad every now and then.
Can you imagine the impact if SAF spoke out against the Glazers?
Him and a few other "Legends" can't sit around scratching their a** hoping this will all pass and they'll continue to make an income off their history at the club. TOP figures in and around the club need to speak up now. We will remember who fought for our clubs future and who protected their own interests.
Oh dear and a successful United or associating them with your business wouldn’t distract from your poor environmental practices?
This just proves "greenwashing" works as well as "sportswashing".
Exactly, which is why it's ridiculous to see people wetting their pants over his takeover from a competitive pov. Ratcliffe isn't going to sink billions into buying Utd only to let the infrastructure rot and be uncompetitive in the transfer market. Why would he do that? He knows the value of the club would just plummet and he'd become a hate figure, and he'll have paid billions for the pleasure. It makes zero sense for him to buy the club only to do that.
Sometimes you wonder if Sir Alex even has a ski mask or bed sheet he can write on
Feck sake man, let the guy enjoy his retirement. He gave us decades of his life, he doesn’t owe us or the club anything!
Of course it's greenwashing. Let's hope Ratcliffe sees of Qatar and then we can start calling him a cnut.
Of course you want Ratcliffe to buy, all Liverpool fans do.
Sir Alex (81, post brain aneurism), can do whatever he likes and regardless will be a legend, without inverted commas, forever. End of:
Moving the club into a position of being run by wealthy people who saddle the club with debt to being owned by a wealthy individual who will saddle the club with debt is the defining fight for the ages.
True. But he's up against Jassim and his ol'man. With their bank balance it's as if Jim's taking on an oil state.
Have Todd Boehly and Clearlake made a bid yet?
Ratcliffe has been the one leaking most to the media during this whole process. You don't need to do that if you think you're ahead in the race
- Status