Americans aren't a race
Maybe it's offensive (I don't know enough about American history) but I don't think it's racist.
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
Maybe it's offensive (I don't know enough about American history) but I don't think it's racist.
Isn't is sort of the equivalent of calling a British person a 'cockney' or a manc' etc?
I do not know of anyone that is offended by the term Yankee or Yank over here....unless you are referring to the NY Yankees, then as an Atlanta Braves fan, yes, highly offensive!!Americans aren't a race
Maybe it's offensive (I don't know enough about American history) but I don't think it's racist.
I was being sarcastic.Americans aren't a race
Maybe it's offensive (I don't know enough about American history) but I don't think it's racist.
Race? The fat bastards barely walk never mind runAmericans aren't a race
Maybe it's offensive (I don't know enough about American history) but I don't think it's racist.
It's certainly not a racist term.
NYSE opens in one minute. Interesting to see how it reacts to the news
Apologies then. It's somewhat hard to tell through text sometimes.
Only to McDonald's or Starbucks or to complete leveraged buyouts amarite
This POV is just so frustratingly wide of the mark.
We already do! It’s just wasted paying for the Glazers and their incompetent decisions. City need financial doping because they are a tiny club that the world doesn’t give a shit about. United have never needed that, we are a behemoth in comparison. If the new owners appoint the right structure we will thrive, both on the pitch and in the boardroom.
We don’t need to copy or aspire to be like City, we should aspire to be better than them in every conceivable way.
Dropping
And the answer is yes. Happens all the time. Companies buy failing companies all the time, and they don't just buy them with cash.
New thread “is saying ‘yank’ racist?”
Yeah but the volumes are below the norms*
I just want to sound like a financial expert type person*
The Yanks are all making coffee
That’s a great video. I hadn’t seen it before. Hope everybody takes a moment to watch it. Hopefully it will allay some of the fears around Sir Jim’s intentions.
Thanks for posting.
Totally agree.
We don't need to financial dope. Just need to be able to not start from behind, due to the debt and dividend payments.
This is why, personally, i don't think we need a Qatar or nation state investment.
Well you wouldn’t want the club bankrupted would you?
This is true how many Champions leagues have City and PSG won ?
Horrific abuse against the gun people and suddenly our stock on the NYankSE drops.
Clearly not a coincidence
Clearly not a coincidence
Have you seen his face?When did the Glazers feck Arteta?!
The debt leveraged on the club is a horrible thing. If the Malcolm borrowed the money against the strip mall business, it would not have had much effect on United. Of course, if the Glazers then used money from United to service that debt, then it would.According to some on here now, the debt was never an issue. It was only incompetence. So if we were in the CL every season or winning the odd PL/CL, the debt would have been a good thing.
In other words, Ineos debt won't affect United, UNLESS Ineos makes United pay to service that debt. Some have claimed that would be the case, but that comes across as just assuming the worst. Nothing said or reported has suggested that will be the case.
Let's also just remember that just because it isn't with a Western Bank doesn't mean that a Qatar bid wouldn't have debt. Even if people accept that it is a state bid, that doesn't mean there isn't debt. Qatar as a nation has debt.
Limey. Cockney, Manc and other colloquialisms are regional. Yank and Limey are national.
Most Americans just use Brit in the way Brits use Yank.
Fans have to be pragmatic about this sale.
It would make us feel better if The Glazers were gone for good, but if they turn out to be retain a minority stake in the club, would it be the worst thing in the world?
I would rather them sell the controlling stake to Ratcliffe than sell more chunks to venture capitalist groups.
It would make us feel better if The Glazers were gone for good, but if they turn out to be retain a minority stake in the club, would it be the worst thing in the world?
I would rather them sell the controlling stake to Ratcliffe than sell more chunks to venture capitalist groups.
Now you mention it, I guess he does have a kinda haunted expression…. Poor guy
Yes nowadays you are right. Brit isnt offensive though, but Limey was, back in the day.
Nope only falls apart when YOU assume stuff that I said. The MANCHESTRER UNITED DEAL will have shareholders, other parties with shares who will expect payments from their shares. There is a reason why there are protests for 100% sale.
Hope thats cleared up for you and you now understand my original point.
I never agree with Harry usually but you're bang on the money here.
When I first heard about Sir Jim's interest, I was estatic. But because everyone wants us to be like Oil City, people are now fed up.
Don't get me wrong, I think we need investment and if Jim is buying us with loan etc, I don't want him near the club. But if he's actually going to pay off the debt which in no way hinders Utd, then I'm fully onboard.
You see, IF the debt is loaded onto Ineos - I couldn't care less. Because it doesn't effect Manchester United. And we're big enough and valuable enough to run ourselves.
I just want the Glazers gone now and if it's SJR, so be it.
So no new debt put onto the club, and no promise at any point that the debt would be cleared.
Now here is what you said:
Which is bullshit by the way because no one thought that he was ever going to waltz in and clear all the debt in the purchase of United. No one can really do that unless it's Amazon or some state backed bid.
The way it actually played out was - everyone loved Ratcliff when he came in as a white knight for us, but the minute Jassim waltzed in with a promise of clearing debt, he was immediately preferred.
At no point was there an insinuation that Jim Ratcliff would clear our debt.
Well you wouldn’t want the club bankrupted would you?
oil states don't go bankrupt only over-leveraged parasites that crawled out from under the dead corpse of American capitalism.It's an idiotic point of view.Yes. That’s exactly what is being argued. Well done.
Our interest repayments during City's rise to dominance:
2008 £60 million
2009 £42 million
2010 £49 million
2011 £168 million
2012 £47 million
2013 £77 million
2014 £28 million
2015 £49 million
This was the time when City were signing the players that would form the basis of their dominance, players we didn't challenge for because 'there was no value in the market'. It was the time we sold Ronaldo and replaced him with Valencia, the time we had to bring Scholes out of retirement because we failed to sign a replacement for him
The Glazers have taken ~£1.5 billion out of united in interest and dividends, that is a new stadium and training ground or far more signings of a much higher calibre just when City were building their empire.
It is written into the terms of the debt that if the club is sold it must be repaid, to not repay the debt is an active decision to refinance not a passive decision to keep the status quo. It was always the assumption that sale of the club would result in the removal of the Glazer debt.
Who do you think will buy the shares off the Glazers in a couple of years? Jim already doesn’t need them and would be a sunk cost since he would have control anyway and has no interest in anything about 51 percent
But it wasn't.
A buyer can use further debt to buy the club, or buy the club including the debt, but restructure it with better terms (like Ratcliff would be doing, and putting it on the holding company), or clearing the debt all together.
The forum markedly turned on Ratcliff when it broke that Qatar were involved, promising full clearance of debt and a lot of ££ into renovation. Shiny new toy and all that.
Whilst we are on that Qatar/Jassim topic, it is extremely odd that he is being outbid if he's apparently so rich, and so vested into the club. Either he's actually bid a lot more than we know or there is a fair bit of bullshit in his PR.
I'm not worried about how either INEOS or Qatar will run the football side of the club because I expect both parties to run with a Sporting director/head coach model.
But my concern is if we can challenge the current bench mark in English football (Man City) and go head to head with them, especially financially. I know people will point to Liverpool winning a title as something that gives us hope, but the reality is that City have been dominant at all levels of their club as outlined below. And the football people they brought in to kick-start their revolution (Marwood/Wilcox) were either a inexperienced football director in Marwood's case or in Wilcox case he had never worked within a football structure before taking a role at City straight from a commentary role on TV. Wilcox was later promoted to a director of the academy role. And the football structure Marwood created is still operational at City throughout the club. And even their current DoF (Txiki) was brought to the club due to the attempts to bring Guardiola to the club. And Txiki himself was given the role at Barcelona without any experience and only survived at City due to Guardiola not being a possibility without Txiki being at the club. Which Guardiola himself has admitted is true.
But the point is, that it's not difficult to create a functional football structure as proven at City with unproven management. But the biggest difference is made via their owners.
But my concern is if we can challenge the current bench mark in English football (Man City) and go head to head with them, especially financially. I know people will point to Liverpool winning a title as something that gives us hope, but the reality is that City have been dominant at all levels of their club as outlined below. And the football people they brought in to kick-start their revolution (Marwood/Wilcox) were either a inexperienced football director in Marwood's case or in Wilcox case he had never worked within a football structure before taking a role at City straight from a commentary role on TV. Wilcox was later promoted to a director of the academy role. And the football structure Marwood created is still operational at City throughout the club. And even their current DoF (Txiki) was brought to the club due to the attempts to bring Guardiola to the club. And Txiki himself was given the role at Barcelona without any experience and only survived at City due to Guardiola not being a possibility without Txiki being at the club. Which Guardiola himself has admitted is true.
But the point is, that it's not difficult to create a functional football structure as proven at City with unproven management. But the biggest difference is made via their owners.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
- Status