Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I quoted your take on Burnham's interview, which you have ridiculously referred to as 'anti United'. There were no 'negative' comments in this past commentary upon the funding, and it wasn't particulary negative, either.

You also referred to 'journalists' and 'politicians' in a derogatory sense. A classic slice of the pro-sportswashing ethos.

'I'm just anti-Glazer'

Nowhere near enough.

It means you are pro-Qatar (and Ratcliffe). The 1958 cult hides behind disingenuous banners like: Full Sale Only, but it's to whom we are sold to which is the primary concern.

You mentioned 'investment in infrastructure and community' (the type of evidence-free bluster which attracts the #QatarIn crowd) but Qatar is not particularly 'investing' in either, absolutely not the latter.

It is worthy of pointing out city's ticket was in place for nine years before Burnham became mayor (a position he has to justify, unlike Qatar, it is not a dictatorship). This is not to absolve him. His refusal to sign a condemnatory letter regarding Abu Dhabi's human rights abuses is galling, but explained (not excused) by the now complex relationship they have with the council Burnham has inherited.

However, nobody who is in favour of, or blasé, about Qatari rule can justifiably attack another's political position without the scourge of 'hypocrisy' being played back, at the very least.
Someone promote this guy. Well said.
 
Simply cannot believe the rumours that the Glazers are now looking for £8bn, they would be pricing themselves out as well as diminishing their own credibility in the business world, they simply cannot move the goalposts like that after such a protracted process, the two bidders would simply walk away.
 
Simply cannot believe the rumours that the Glazers are now looking for £8bn, they would be pricing themselves out as well as diminishing their own credibility in the business world, they simply cannot move the goalposts like that after such a protracted process, the two bidders would simply walk away.
Don’t be believing it
 
Would be great if the EPL stated that OT is not fit for purpose now in the Premier League, and without major refurbishment the club will be demoted to the Championship. Not going to happen of course, but something like that would certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons.
 
Simply cannot believe the rumours that the Glazers are now looking for £8bn, they would be pricing themselves out as well as diminishing their own credibility in the business world, they simply cannot move the goalposts like that after such a protracted process, the two bidders would simply walk away.
It’s rubbish. They can’t get £6Bn as things stand. Who do they think is going to come in and offer more than 2Bn that’s already offered?
 
2012 - Earth's billions of inhabitants are unaware that the planet has an expiration date. With the warnings of an American scientist, world leaders begin secret preparations for the survival of select members of society. When the global cataclysm finally occurs, failed writer Jackson Curtis tries to lead his family to safety as the world starts falling apart.
 
Would be great if the EPL stated that OT is not fit for purpose now in the Premier League, and without major refurbishment the club will be demoted to the Championship. Not going to happen of course, but something like that would certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons.
If the Glazers can get some investment institution to fund a new or redeveloped stadium without using their cash then they may well stay.

It’s a strategic review - selling is only one of the options.
 
Insulting another member
I'm anti-Qatar mate

Sorry to misrepresent you.

Throwing mud at each other
Guess this is the future under Qatar.

Worse. It's the here and now.

If Andy Burnham is "uncomfortable" with this then he seemed perfectly ok with Chinese investment in Manchester City centre and made sure his mate Chris Boardman got paid in a very unusual way for his input as a cycling Tsar...

Another good example is the extant Saudi 'investment' into United but your post is the usual 'yeah, but whatabout' designed to distract from the actual point (92F's funding).

Shame. I was really looking forward to who the latest cnut on here was, still, there’s always tomorrow.

No need to wait. Just look in the mirror.
 
Sorry to misrepresent you.



Worse. It's the here and now.



Another good example is the extant Saudi 'investment' into United but your post is the usual 'yeah, but whatabout' designed to distract from the actual point (92F's funding).



No need to wait. Just look in the mirror.
:lol: I’ve just been slated on the interweb by a child
 
Simply cannot believe the rumours that the Glazers are now looking for £8bn, they would be pricing themselves out as well as diminishing their own credibility in the business world, they simply cannot move the goalposts like that after such a protracted process, the two bidders would simply walk away.

Perhaps there's someone mixing up currency in the rumours.

A while back the £6bn figure was around $7.3-7.5 billion dollars. Today this £6bn figure is now very close to $7.8bn so some people in reporting and finance will now round it up to $8bn wanted which works out to £6.2bn.

For round figure purposes Glazers will now want $8bn as the dollar slides.
 
I quoted your take on Burnham's interview, which you have ridiculously referred to as 'anti United'. There were no 'negative' comments in this past commentary upon the funding, and it wasn't particulary negative, either.

You also referred to 'journalists' and 'politicians' in a derogatory sense. A classic slice of the pro-sportswashing ethos.

'I'm just anti-Glazer'

Nowhere near enough.

It means you are pro-Qatar (and Ratcliffe). The 1958 cult hides behind disingenuous banners like: Full Sale Only, but it's to whom we are sold to which is the primary concern.

You mentioned 'investment in infrastructure and community' (the type of evidence-free bluster which attracts the #QatarIn crowd) but Qatar is not particularly 'investing' in either, absolutely not the latter.

It is worthy of pointing out city's ticket was in place for nine years before Burnham became mayor (a position he has to justify, unlike Qatar, it is not a dictatorship). This is not to absolve him. His refusal to sign a condemnatory letter regarding Abu Dhabi's human rights abuses is galling, but explained (not excused) by the now complex relationship they have with the council Burnham has inherited.

However, nobody who is in favour of, or blasé, about Qatari rule can justifiably attack another's political position without the scourge of 'hypocrisy' being played back, at the very least.
Interesting perspective. I found an article about Burnham praising Manchester as a football capital of the world on the back of City's treble where he refers to the success of both United and City in their achievements. He didn't seem to promote or lend support explicitly to City's ownership, and so when he says that the lack of transparency over the Qatari bid for United is "uncomfortable" i don't inherently see that as hypocritical, nor do i think his two sets of comments conflict logically.

With that said, I do not like him legitimizing City's treble because furthers Abu Dhabi's successful sportswashing project that i believe Qatar wants to replicate. The bolded is also very concerning. My expectation of him or any mayor is that he holds any state ownership to account, especially as Manchester risks becoming the sportswashing capital of the world.
 
Perhaps there's someone mixing up currency in the rumours.

A while back the £6bn figure was around $7.3-7.5 billion dollars. Today this £6bn figure is now very close to $7.8bn so some people in reporting and finance will now round it up to $8bn wanted which works out to £6.2bn.

For round figure purposes Glazers will now want $8bn as the dollar slides.
This is my take as well but with the caveat the Glazers want £6-6.2bn that’s what they want to sell 69% controlling shares and relinquish control of the club, the remaining 50million ‘A’ shares being also purchased at an enterprise value of $38 ($1.9bn) means that the final price is close to £8bn actually about £7.5-7.7bn this is the true cost which I mentioned probably about 500 pages ago and got laughed at , for the very last time the Glazers, yes all 6 of them want a minimum of £6bn to sell their controlling stake within the club.
£6-6.2bn for the Glazers plus £1.5bn for the remaining 31% shares of club.
 
Simply cannot believe the rumours that the Glazers are now looking for £8bn, they would be pricing themselves out as well as diminishing their own credibility in the business world, they simply cannot move the goalposts like that after such a protracted process, the two bidders would simply walk away.

I think it’s bullshit. They are beyond insane if they have increased the valuation by an extra £2bn when let’s be fair, the club in its current state isn’t anywhere near that original £6bn valuation. Neither Jassim or Ratcliffe have offered the original £6bn asking price. If it is indeed £8bn, I won’t be surprised if both bidders walked away and I couldn’t blame either of them for doing so.
 
I think it’s bullshit. They are beyond insane if they have increased the valuation by an extra £2bn when let’s be fair, the club in its current state isn’t anywhere near that original £6bn valuation. Neither Jassim or Ratcliffe have offered the original £6bn asking price. If it is indeed £8bn, I won’t be surprised if both bidders walked away and I couldn’t blame either of them for doing so.
Sadly it coincides with the noises we've heard so far, none of the bids have excited them and they've been dragging their heels. The only hope we've been clinging on to, is the hope that they are forced to sell, and are only squeezing a few more mils. But that is also starting to look more unlikely as this drags on.
 
Sadly it coincides with the noises we've heard so far, none of the bids have excited them and they've been dragging their heels. The only hope we've been clinging on to, is the hope that they are forced to sell, and are only squeezing a few more mils. But that is also starting to look more unlikely as this drags on.
It's a simple fact that the Glazers do still need major inward investment in order to renovate Old Trafford & Carrington - Richard Arnold said as much here:

Full Richard Arnold fan meeting | 'Officials in Barca for De Jong, £200M budget money NOT a problem' - YouTube (time 0:50)

My theory (albeit not a novel one) is that Avram & Joel are digging their heels in for Ratcliffe's deal (which obviously allows them to keep their stakes), whilst all of the other Glazers - alongside the minority shareholders - are doing the same but for Jassim's clean break bid.

Something will have to give. But the one thing I can't see happening is nothing; the irresistible scent of a possible sale is now well and truly caught in the nostrils of most Glazers/minority shareholders/fans/etc., whilst Joel & Avram can't afford that anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a simple fact that the Glazers do still need major inward investment in order to renovate Old Trafford & Carrington - Richard Arnold said as much here:

Full Richard Arnold fan meeting | 'Officials in Barca for De Jong, £200M budget money NOT a problem' - YouTube (time 0:50)

My theory (albeit not a novel one) is that Avram & Joel are digging their heels in for Ratcliffe's deal (which obviously allows them to keep their stakes), whilst all of the other Glazers - alongside the minority shareholders - are doing the same but for Jassim's clean break bid.

Something will have to give. But the one thing I can't see happening is nothing; the irresistible scent of a possible sale is now well and truly caught in the nostrils of most Glazers/minority shareholders/fans/etc., whilst Joel & Avram can't afford that anyway.


Usually you would think the people with numbers in their favour namely other Glazers and shareholders would prevail over the leeching duo,however it doesn't feel that's the case in this scenario. Those two are powerful unfortunately
 
Usually you would think the people with numbers in their favour namely other Glazers and shareholders would prevail over the leeching duo,however it doesn't feel that's the case in this scenario. Those two are powerful unfortunately

I have got it into my head (I think it is because he keeps turning up to matches all of a sudden, making out he cares) is that Avram is the main scalp you to take. I know that Joel makes decisions (and takes ages about doing so) in the day to day operations, but to use a cricket analogy, if you take the wicket of Avram, then Joel will follow.
 
I have got it into my head (I think it is because he keeps turning up to matches all of a sudden, making out he cares) is that Avram is the main scalp you to take. I know that Joel makes decisions (and takes ages about doing so) in the day to day operations, but to use a cricket analogy, if you take the wicket of Avram, then Joel will follow.

Yeah Avram is the big wicket but he keeps on playing defensive shots,how do we draw him into making a mistake is the question
 
The original deal ends at the end of next season (24/25). Would imagine it's the perfect time to renew/announce cutting ties.

And I imagine if there was going to be a new owner they would be the one to sign off a 10 year deal
 
The original deal ends at the end of next season (24/25). Would imagine it's the perfect time to renew/announce cutting ties.

If there were any intentions to sell, Glazer's wouldn't waste time negotiating and let the new owners deal with it

Feel the Glazer's are just going to stay and then blame the bidders
 
If there were any intentions to sell, Glazer's wouldn't waste time negotiating and let the new owners deal with it

Feel the Glazer's are just going to stay and then blame the bidders

I highly doubt they had any discussions with Adidas. It would have been Arnold etc who did. Glazers would have just given the green light. For all we know, it was agreed ages ago but just announced today. Granted it doesn't look too good but they're just running business as normal it would seem.
 
Adidas expansion being signed can't bode well

Single biggest sponsorship deal now sorted for the next 10 years... with 20% increase on the last lucrative deal. Sounds great doesn't it, but if you think about it that effectively covers the anticipated increased interest rate on the debt - so it offsets a future expense in the horizon, but doesn't really make the club anymore profitable.

I don't think it signals either way about the club ownership, but its just utterly frustrating that we don't know what the next days, weeks and months look like, and we're signing off 10 year deals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.