I never said I’d leave the caf. I’ll stop supporting United and just lark around in the footy forum.
Glazers exploring potential sale | Stay on topic and post respectfully | Do not post dodgy tweet sources
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's emphatic 4-1 win over Chelsea at Old Trafford and celebrate Manchester United being back in the Champions League. They also discuss United Women, takeover latest and transfer rumours before previewing the FA Cup Final vs. Manchester City.
You could hardly call Manchester United self-sufficient if billions are being pumped in on the stadium, training ground etc from outside.
I don't like to sit in judgment of the morality of other parts of the world, hard as that may be. Particularly when parts of the world we live in were built on the suffering of others, that has it's own hypocrisy in it.
That isn't to say I'm comfortable with the club being bought by them. I'd rather we weren't put in the position at all. There are just too many aspects of them owning us that make me uneasy.
Ideally it wouldn't be Ineos either. I'm not a big fan of Brexit Tories (or any Tories for that matter
).
That isn't to say I'm comfortable with the club being bought by them. I'd rather we weren't put in the position at all. There are just too many aspects of them owning us that make me uneasy.
Ideally it wouldn't be Ineos either. I'm not a big fan of Brexit Tories (or any Tories for that matter
).Have you decided what you might do if you sell your house, the value of which is currently inflated by ME middle eastern oil money?
Maybe you could buy a new saddle for that massive fecking high horse you are constantly sitting on.
Maybe you'll have some of that juicy profit left to make a donation to Amnesty Internation seeing as thought you feel so strongly about the subject
There's definitely something pure and simple there but it ain't what you think.
I was speaking in terms of buying players etc.
I don’t like the Qatari bid because I hate state owned clubs.
I don’t like the Ratcliff bid because I question if he has enough money to invest in the stadium, the youth academy, the infrastructure and the first team.
I don’t like the Glazers because the are leeches and left us in a bad situation because they didn’t invest in the club and the infrastructure but just got money out of the club, will leave the club with a bid debt and spend a lot of money on the wrong players, although that wasn’t their fault, the bad directors and management team was.
So now what? We have to pick one out of three bad choices it seems.
I don’t like the Ratcliff bid because I question if he has enough money to invest in the stadium, the youth academy, the infrastructure and the first team.
I don’t like the Glazers because the are leeches and left us in a bad situation because they didn’t invest in the club and the infrastructure but just got money out of the club, will leave the club with a bid debt and spend a lot of money on the wrong players, although that wasn’t their fault, the bad directors and management team was.
So now what? We have to pick one out of three bad choices it seems.
sure, except we’re at the ad infinitum stage where the same conversations are cycling over & over again.
That's nearly every thread on this website.
Or
D. Just keep supporting the club regardless of who the owners are? That's the only choice where you actually have some control over. The previous three mentioned 'choices' have nothing to do with you nor do you have any say-so in.
If you are pro-Qatar (and I have to say it seems that way from your activity in this thread) then yes, you absolutely are advocating state funding.
I know you don’t agree, but I believe Sir Jim’s main goal is absolutely NOT about profit. I know INEOS is a business, but they are also just his own investment vehicle.
Ask yourself, what profit does he take from Nice or Lausanne? How much does he make from Sir Ben Aynsley and his sailing team or Eliud Kipchoge?
Is it not possible that the guy just enjoys sport? Is it not plausible being from the area that he genuinely is a fan of the club? (And I don’t mean that as the be all and end all because it isn’t, but it’s certainly a driver in his desire to own the club)
Is it really so unbelievable that a 70 yr old billionaire wants to invest his cash in a legacy?
What happened to the two “silent” bidders? Maybe one of them could be the way?
An indicative offer actually. No actual bids have been made.
It's either this or creating very mediocre memes that make @Solius sad.
Oh sorry, you have changed your mind since an indicative offer.
How much did that cost him? This is a different level entirely. I'd also be pretty concerned about what happens when he dies.
Nah, this one is like watching the Truman Show, with the same recurring cast
Many times
This is a salient point I don't think he is in cycling for bundles of endless cash either
Sigh. 800 pages later and the ‘Ratcliffe can’t afford us’ arguement is still getting aired. For goodness sake!
Oh yeah, I forgot about the cycling
If the investment is not on Utd’s books, and we are also debt free, we are likely the most self-sufficient club on the planet.
Watched that again, recently. Not as good as I remembered.
Precisely.
Aren’t PSG/City more self sustaining than us?
Is that a genuine question?
Yeah it’s one of those movies that’s better in theory rather than reality
Yeah? City made around 40 million more than us. Tbf PSG made a little bit less and sit one place behind us in the revenue table.
But…that’s not him?Thats just silly.
Are you saying that Raine Group has been hoodwinked?
How much of it do you think is genuine
Im not sure what difference the cost makes to his motivations? He isn’t the kind of guy to throw his money away- he is directly quoted about INEOS never being ‘the dumb money’ so whether it’s millions, billions or whatever he isn’t going to invest if he doesn’t believe in it.
Joel Glazer is 55. Avi Glazer is 62. That’s not a huge difference in age but this point (about death) has never been raised for them. Also Malcolm ACTUALLY died whilst custodian of the club and it had literally no material impact on the club. The point is moot - there will be contractual contingencies for such an event. The club doesn’t die just because the owner does.
Oh. So State backed clubs inflate finances unfairly?How much of it do you think is genuine
They have literally been found guilty
I’m not sure you know what you are arguing anymore. I certainly don’t follow your line of posting!
I don't think it's the same. The Glazers bought the club to leech money from it, that didn't change once Malcolm died. Jim Ratcliffe is supposed to be buying the club because he is a United fan. Once he dies presumably INEOS would be in control. I don't really like the idea of that because that changes the dynamic.
Sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense
PSG then. They’re only a few million behind us and have signed major deals since then, so they’re most sustainable.They have literally been found guilty
Maybe that's your issue then!
I feel unfortunately that you want to make that decision. But I also think it important for you that you stick to what you believe. That’s the same for everyone including many who are pro-Qatari bid. I think Qatari bid is better but I respect your decision.