Recent content by Esquire

Spending what we earn without the glazers debt is not a misnomer. If true, Qatar was going to wipe out the debt and fund the stadium cap ex. The club would not have to take on borrowings to fund the stadium upgrade and the like. But I don’t disagree with you that in any event this is now moot...

Agree with this. Let’s just put performance aside (and the massive transfer fees potentially involved). What is sorely needed is stability and investment on infrastructure + clearing of debt. It’s simple, the club just needs to be able to spend its own earnings. That’s not possible right...

Completely agree with you. From a deal perspective, Glazers won hands down. The club has not won at all, Sir Jim paid over the odds just to get his foot in the door. People say there must be a time table for him to get total control, yes there should be but we don’t have insight of the...

I agree with you and the poster you responded to. Like any business deal, it’s perspective. Some people clearly see this as a start of something good and new. With the Glazers and their entire conduct since they owned this club day 1, I don’t see how this is the start of another chapter. Sir...

Many reports say the Qataris were going to wipe off the debt, invest in the stadium and also build infrastructure in the community, total package of 7b. So result is not the same, if you proceed on the assumption that the smart men you are talking about will continue to invest in the club...

Completely with you.

Don’t disagree but the fact is that some people think that Qatari ownership is morally problematic and others think that Sir Jim’s partial investment is start of something good. It’s normal for people to disagree and debate. Check out the state of the word we are living in where things are so...

Your assumption is that the Glazers will cede control at some point. A purported 5b offer from Qatar from a 750m investment (not even their money is not enough). Yes, you are assuming Ratcliffe a shrewed billionaire will put in money where he has no say over the management of the club. Yes...

Open mind as to what? How much of that purchase price will go back to the club? What’s 1.5b (let’s say the Glazers won’t take a penny of it and plough the same back into investment), is that even enough given the state of our facilities, stadium, playing staff which clearly needs upgrading...

Completely with you. But I simply refuse to believe that we bought Mount on a whim. I believe when we got him everyone or a majority of supporters praised the deal. He was (barring last season when everyone at Chelsea was crap) their best player for a couple of seasons. Can’t argue with...

Yes so according to your impeccable logic let’s sack ETH after he’s shown demonstrable progress last year with an overachieving 3d place and cup plus CL qualification. Yes the results have been poor but we clearly have problems beyond him. But the first thing you can think of is sack him...

You are being very speculative, no? The question from the prior poster implies EH may be better. I disagree on current evidence. EH may be better in the long run but I don’t believe he is a better replacement at this point.

Completely with you mate.

1. ETH won the league (albeit Dutch but still he won something) 2. Took Ajax in CL to semi-final 3. Before Newcastle, EH’s biggest achieve is what? Making Bournemouth stay up 4 of 5 seasons. Got relegated the resigned. 4. Before Saudi takeover, did ETH get the team to play like Brighton now...

I feel the same way as you. I will never stop caring or supporting United but I don’t believe firing ETH is the answer. The only sliver of light is Glazers actually selling up.