If INEOS can't even succeed in their first 2 ventures in football ownership, how do you expect United fans to be any confident about SJR?
Yes, it had been suggested several times that there is doubt from the Raine side about the Qatari's funding. Which is why I cannot understand the theory that everything the Glazers have said and done so far has been for extracting more money from Qatar specifically. Sir Jim showing up in person for talks was also a big factor vs the Qatari delegation of no names.
Well Utd have managed to remain successful under the Glazers, SJ or SJR will be a massive improvement as long as they give the club room to breathe and support itself, let alone if they actually choose to invest, and it only makes sense to invest if they intend to grow the club, ultimately the only thing I am interested in is not the Glazers beyond that it is all gravy
What makes you think that someone who had mismanaged Lausanne and Nice will successfully manage a club that is bigger and is competing in a much tougher league?
In what way we were successful. After SAF left we never finished above Manchester City.
He may be referring to the 8 preceding years to Fergie's retirement when we won all those trophies and made 3 CL finals.
But that wasn't down to the Glazers, that was doing to having an outstanding manager who was top of his class in everything.
Yeah but that logic works both ways, as in you could just as easily say the Glazers would've been comparably successful had Woordward hired the right guys post Fergie.
Never thought of it that way but you're absolutely correct. The failure post Fergie is definitely down to both the Glazers and Woodward.
How do you come to that conclusion? Start watching in 2014? United's benchmark for success is much higher than a couple league cups and a Europa league.
The Glazers were obviously inept (being kind here), but the common strain in our decade of mediocrity was Woodward imo. He had no meaningful football experience coming in and was basically an investment banker who managed to ingratiate himself Joel and Avram, to where they put him in charge of Manchester Untied. Its no coincidence that our mediocrity began immediately following his arrival (the moment Fergie and Gill departed) and his departure seems to have gotten us back on track. Obviously some of that is the Glazers fault and some can even be apportioned to Fergie for bequeathing the United job to Moyes.
Any potential loses is still a drop in the ocean compared to a deal to buy the club. If we don't qualify for CL we lose £20m from Adidas spread out until our contract ends with them. That would be the main hit the club would take but as the players wages are dependent on CL qualification it would offset that loss.
Fergie papered over the cracks for years and the Glazers were just exposed when he left. Have we spent the 80 mil from Ronaldo yet? We sell the best player in the world for a record and the money just disappeared. We went years with just signing cheap transfers while keeping players like Anderson, Nani, Cleverly who weren't good enough. Did we compete for Pep or Klopp when Fergie retired, no, we got the cheap guy from Everton, with the perfect cover of Fergie wanting him.
What makes you think someone who has never managed a club and has never had any experience/learning club management would do a better job? They promised you more shiny new things?
I'd say 5 league titles in 8 years, plus a CL title and 3 CL finals is a bit more than papering over the cracks. It just shows that a great manager can overcome a lot of adversity to become successful. Going from Fergie/Gill to Woodward/Moyes and the knock on effects related to hiring Moyes, and a slew of panic signings was down to Woodward's ineptness. City on the other hand, hired well in terms of their executive staff, which led to the subsequent conditions of where they find themselves now.
Who hired and kept Woodward employed?
Who kept Fergie and Gill employed at the club from 2005-13 ? No one is arguing the Glazers are without blame here. I'm talking more from a purely football perspective - it was Woodward who was primarily responsible for football operations and the differences between him and Gill are pretty stark.
I'd rather have an unknown with deep pockets rather then a proven clown who thinks that its a good idea to involve someone in cycling into football and who keeps messing up again and again. I mean it takes a whole level of stupidity to think that you can compete with PSG by adding the likes of Barkley, Ramsey, Pepe and Schmeichel to an already average lot.
Things seem to have gone to an eerie radio silence, which may the calm before the storm prior to some sort of announcement (or not).
Well that’s the point. 2005-2013 they were lucky a good footballing system was in place so their complete incompetence/ negligence of the club went unnoticed. They then brought someone in to replace and continued the negligence even though it was obvious Woodward was what the French call Les incompetent.
And Gill for not preparing the club for life without SAF, seemingly poorly preparing his deputy and being the one actually hiring Moyes.
I started watching Utd mid 80s, Glazers have been in charge since 2005 and arguably oversaw one of the most successful periods in the clubs history, I would argue that was in spite of them, but that was precisely my entire point, that Utd in spite of SJ or SJR are likely to be better than Utd in spite of the Glazers, so my preferred option is not the Glazers.
Would not be very surprising.
We do not. Poor orthography and grammar.
Thought that was Kevin MacAllister
What makes you think that Lausanne and Nice are so perfectly comparable, completely different club, league, infrastructure everything, the only thing Utd has in common is that they are all football clubs, beyond that SFA so making knee-jerk comparisons is somewhat well knee-jerky
why not instead compare to SJR's success in accruing a personal fortune of near £30bn from nothing, building up a company with a £60bn plus annual turnover.... is that any way less apples and oranges than Lausanne and Nice are?A good summary. Everything else really is just speculation.
It's not actually been long and none of these people have had the ability to focus exclusively on that deal, they are all business people and companies that have other things to do. But the most important point the first official talks between Raine and prospective buyers started mid February.
Doesn't point 1 contradict point 3 though?
Smaller clubs are actually easier to manage then big clubs which is why the likes of Abu Dhabi and Saudi bought small clubs in the first place. One can buy a small club with a good fan base and great facilities (almost as good if not better to ours). On top of that the expectations are low, fans are ready to wait and a couple of good signings can be enough to paper the cracks and make the fan base happy. If they mess things up at the level of Nice and Lausanne then how on earth can they awake a sleeping giant whose got huge infrastructure and football issues and is competing in one of the toughest and most competitive leagues in football history?What makes you think that Lausanne and Nice are so perfectly comparable, completely different club, league, infrastructure everything, the only thing Utd has in common is that they are all football clubs, beyond that SFA so making knee-jerk comparisons is somewhat well knee-jerky
Don't get me wrong I don't love SJR, prefer the bottomless oil money and to hell with my soul and conscience if I had to choose, but I just find it ridiculous when people pick and choose bits and bobs in order to prove the point they want to make, on balance is SJR a successful business man? the answer swings massively to yes, I somehow suspect he is unlikely to pee £6bn up the wall
Not unusual to haggle over a few % even in huge deals - not saying it's definite but certain plausible
Those few percents are the funds for one or two brand new superyachts. I would be haggling until the end of time.
The fit and proper persons test is a joke, Gangsters and criminals have passed it no problem. Nobody is ever failing that as long as they have a few quid.
you're right. It should say "some, most, all, or nothing". Or we could get rid of the whole point 1.Pretty much
