Qatar Bollocks (AKA Qatar consider MUFC takeover?)

[ciderman9000000]

On the other hand I'd rather see United in the hands of a transfer muppet rather then submerged in debt as it is at the moment.

Why?

Do you look at City with envious eyes and think yeah, that's what I wish United was like.. run like a circus with clowns performing whenever they feel like it because they're only there to get the top cash, wouldn't have come to the club otherwise and they'll run to another club if they get more money waved at their agent?

I'd rather United stayed as it was than became simply the biggest willy in a Middle Eastern pissing contest.

 

[Spoony]

Why?

Do you look at City with envious eyes and think yeah, that's what I wish United was like.. run like a circus with clowns performing whenever they feel like it because they're only there to get the top cash, wouldn't have come to the club otherwise and they'll run to another club if they get more money waved at their agent?

I'd rather United stayed as it was than became simply the biggest willy in a Middle Eastern pissing contest.

I don't think we'd be run like Man City. It's not as if potential owners would be building a club. I think it'd me more of the same but with no debt. If anything what's going on at City should be a great example of what no to do - buy a no mark club and fill it with mercenaries.

 

[theimperialinn]

Giving the world cup to Qatar wasn't about giving the shittest nation a world cup.

It was about taking the game to developing markets, ie, the middle east as a whole.

I've heard via a few money men at work that the people behind the world cup and the new Barca shirt deal have provided the funds to re-finance the PIK.

 

[theimperialinn]

I don't think we'd be run like Man City. It's not as if potential owners would be building a club. I think it'd me more of the same but with no debt. If anything what's going on at City should be a great example of what no to do - buy a no mark club and fill it with mercenaries.

In principle they would do the same as the Glazer's, promote the brand, although they would leverage their global profile on it rather than bleed it dry.

 

[Plechazunga]

Messi and Ronaldo both on United...

Can you really say that in American English? I know you'd say "on the team" rather than "in", but "on United"?

 

[ciderman9000000]

I don't think we'd be run like Man City. It's not as if potential owners would be building a club. I think it'd me more of the same but with no debt. If anything what's going on at City should be a great example of what no to do - buy a no mark club and fill it with mercenaries.

No, perhaps we'd be run more like Real Madrid.

 

[Spoony]

In principle they would do the same as the Glazer's, promote the brand, although they would leverage their global profile on it rather than bleed it dry.

Yep. Anyway, fingerscrossed.

 

[holyland red]

On the other hand I'd rather see United in the hands of a transfer muppet rather then submerged in debt as it is at the moment. Lets face it, its not as if the Glazers are experts in football am I right?

No, they aren't, which is why they let SAF run football affairs of the club. How sad it would be if transfer muppet owners made SAF leave the club after a quarter of a century because they had to promote football in the gulf ahead of 2022.

 

[vanrooney]

Generally i am all against the shit turbo financing of football. Because maybe there is at some time nothing left of the game we love. But i have to say if we are talking about United i only think about whats best for the club.

Therefor i have to say that a takeover is inevitable. The only question is who is going to buy out the Glazers. The point is i prefer a takeover at a time where the great superb and hoperfully for long time serving Sir Alex Ferguson is in charge. Because he knows and can articulate that nobody is bigger than the club. All in all i have to say bring in the money now. Why not. Its not as if we have no history.


ps: i am totaly drunk and not english so please take the mistakes as given

So once again. I can only quote myself SAF is the main factor. If he is there i have no problem at all with a takeover

 

[Rood]

Better the devil you know ...

 

[Rood]

No, perhaps we'd be run more like Real Madrid.

Which would be horrible

Anyway I am still waiting for some real info about this - so far it just seems like a case of 2+2=50.
Although the rumour does seem to be gathering pace ...

 

[RDCR07]

I know this is worse than some of the transfer muppetry but I would be delighted to see the Arabs take over the club.

 

[I'm always right]

I know this is worse than some of the transfer muppetry but I would be delighted to see the Arabs take over the club.

I rated you better than that RDCR07

 

[Zarlak]

I don't think we'd be run like Man City. It's not as if potential owners would be building a club. I think it'd me more of the same but with no debt. If anything what's going on at City should be a great example of what no to do - buy a no mark club and fill it with mercenaries.

But the problem is, what is going on at City will not be seen as a great example of what not to do, because they don't see it as what not to do, they love it, they don't think they are going wrong and they are doing what they think is the right thing to do. That won't change, if we are in a dick waving contest to see who is the best between Qatar and Abu Dhabi then we will wind up down that road, because they think that that's the right way to do it.

It's only us that thinks differently.

Debt or not debt, we are currently a club and run as such. I do not want to see us become a toy and run like one.

 

[vanrooney]

But the problem is, what is going on at City will not be seen as a great example of what not to do, because they don't see it as what not to do, they love it, they don't think they are going wrong and they are doing what they think is the right thing to do. That won't change, if we are in a dick waving contest to see who is the best between Qatar and Abu Dhabi then we will wind up down that road, because they think that that's the right way to do it.

It's only us that thinks differently.

Debt or not debt, we are currently a club and run as such. I do not want to see us become a toy and run like one.

feck it what City is doing. Thats not of interest imo. It only matters how our owners fair with the management of the club and as long SAF is here it is totally irrelevant who is the owner.

 

[mufcwarm92]

I love how this has got to 3 pages without a single piece of hard evidence that there is even any interest.

 

[Zarlak]

feck it what City is doing. Thats not of interest imo. It only matters how our owners fair with the management of the club and as long SAF is here it is totally irrelevant who is the owner.

The point is, if this actually happens, the new guys are just as bad as City with their mentality. It will happen to us and we don't want that.

 

[ciderman9000000]

The point is, if this actually happens, the new guys are just as bad as City with their mentality. It will happen to us and we don't want that.

It's not necessarily true that they'll have the same mentality, though I do strongly suspect the two sets of owners would be very similar in style

 

[Zarlak]

It's not necessarily true that they'll have the same mentality, though I do strongly suspect the two sets of owners would be very similar in style

Their world cup bid consisted of "We have lots of money and can buy the biggest shit around, look at all the money we will spend to have the biggest and best of everything."

Doha is a play ground, it won't be any different here.

 

[decorativeed]

Can you really say that in American English? I know you'd say "on the team" rather than "in", but "on United"?

Same as "hate on". Makes little sense to English ears/eyes.

 

[RDCR07]

I rated you better than that RDCR07

Hey its not my fault I hate the Glazers this much. The Arabs are a way better option than the Glazers.

 

[Plechazunga]

Same as "hate on". Makes little sense to English ears/eyes.

'Hate on' we're used to 'cos of rap. Likewise 'on the team', I've heard it a thousand times. But is it normal to say 'on United'?

 

[decorativeed]

I know this is worse than some of the transfer muppetry but I would be delighted to see the Arabs take over the club.

I wouldn't. Can't believe some people are so excited by this idea.

 

[Red Defence]

Hey its not my fault I hate the Glazers this much. The Arabs are a way better option than the Glazers.

Why?

 

[Zarlak]

Why?

Because, to some people Glazer = bad, bad bad people. Ronald McDonald would be a better owner to them than Glazer. Anyone but Glazer for them apparently, literally anyone as long as they get to celebrate Glazer leaving.

However some of us do realise it's not a good idea, it's funny how everybody slates Arabs coming and buying football clubs like toys "you can't buy success" etc etc and the second it happens "ooh what's that? Glazers out? Yes, a million times yes. No I don't want to hear who the new owners are, you said Glazers out that's enough for me. Oh it's rich Arabs? Damn... we complain about the way they operate football clubs.... ah well sod it, bring them on. THE GLAZERS WILL BE OUT LOLOLOLOL."

We're a football club mostly enjoying success year after year, let's carry on being operated like one.

 

[RDCR07]

Why?

Well for one they have more money than the Glazers and all I care about is the debt and they are more than capable of helping us pay the debt.

 

[PeteReDevil]

Because, to some people Glazer = bad, bad bad people. Ronald McDonald would be a better owner to them than Glazer. Anyone but Glazer for them apparently, literally anyone as long as they get to celebrate Glazer leaving.

However some of us do realise it's not a good idea, it's funny how everybody slates Arabs coming and buying football clubs like toys "you can't buy success" etc etc and the second it happens "ooh what's that? Glazers out? Yes, a million times yes. No I don't want to hear who the new owners are, you said Glazers out that's enough for me. Oh it's rich Arabs? Damn... we complain about the way they operate football clubs.... ah well sod it, bring them on. THE GLAZERS WILL BE OUT LOLOLOLOL."

We're a football club mostly enjoying success year after year, let's carry on being operated like one.

yes and that's what really counts

 

[I'm always right]

Because, to some people Glazer = bad, bad bad people. Ronald McDonald would be a better owner to them than Glazer. Anyone but Glazer for them apparently, literally anyone as long as they get to celebrate Glazer leaving.

However some of us do realise it's not a good idea, it's funny how everybody slates Arabs coming and buying football clubs like toys "you can't buy success" etc etc and the second it happens "ooh what's that? Glazers out? Yes, a million times yes. No I don't want to hear who the new owners are, you said Glazers out that's enough for me. Oh it's rich Arabs? Damn... we complain about the way they operate football clubs.... ah well sod it, bring them on. THE GLAZERS WILL BE OUT LOLOLOLOL."

We're a football club mostly enjoying success year after year, let's carry on being operated like one.

Nail on head.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Well for one they have more money than the Glazers and all I care about is the debt and they are more than capable of helping us pay the debt.

All you care about is debt? Really? You sad bastard

 

[Neutral]

Why?

Do you look at City with envious eyes and think yeah, that's what I wish United was like.. run like a circus with clowns performing whenever they feel like it because they're only there to get the top cash, wouldn't have come to the club otherwise and they'll run to another club if they get more money waved at their agent?

I'd rather United stayed as it was than became simply the biggest willy in a Middle Eastern pissing contest.

But the only reason that's happened at City is because they have no pedigree, no recognition, so they've had to go out and get mercenaries.

United are not in the same position, we aren't looking for billionaires to help us end a 30+ year old trophy drought(City), or help us stay afloat(Chelsea). We don't need owners to finance huge, big money signings, rather owners who would help us avoid millions of pounds of revenue each year going to waste on repayment of interest on loans.

I also happen to think, ADUG have been great owners so far...nothing like Roman, yes they came in and wanted a big name signing to make their intentions known...but you don't see the owners telling the manager who to sign, who to play, or the owners in the news week in, week out involved in controversies.

Not to mention, they seem to have laid out long term plans for the area....

 

[devilish]

No, they aren't, which is why they let SAF run football affairs of the club. How sad it would be if transfer muppet owners made SAF leave the club after a quarter of a century because they had to promote football in the gulf ahead of 2022.

They are doing so because they don't have a choice. If they kick SAF out of OT its game over. The fans will turn against them and they won't be able to pay the debts. The Glazers can be intrusive. You only have to turned Tampa Bay upside down. At one point they even threatened to move the team out of tampa bay.

 

[olesmyhero]

They are doing so because they don't have a choice. If they kick SAF out of OT its game over. The fans will turn against them and they won't be able to pay the debts. The Glazers can be intrusive. You only have to turned Tampa Bay upside down. At one point they even threatened to move the team out of tampa bay.

That's not uncommon in pro sports here. Whenever a franchise wants a new stadium or better deal or something, they threaten to leave.

 

[devilish]

Why?

Do you look at City with envious eyes and think yeah, that's what I wish United was like.. run like a circus with clowns performing whenever they feel like it because they're only there to get the top cash, wouldn't have come to the club otherwise and they'll run to another club if they get more money waved at their agent?

I'd rather United stayed as it was than became simply the biggest willy in a Middle Eastern pissing contest.

I look at any big club who has zero debt (or close to zero) and who do not need to fleece fans to pay some ruthless 'investor' debt off with envy eyes.

Ideally I would prefer a rich fan as an owner. If that is not possible then I would want the club to end in the hands of a rich cnut and not someone who expects the fans to pay for his 'franchise'

 

[devilish]

That's not uncommon in pro sports here. Whenever a franchise wants a new stadium or better deal or something, they threaten to leave.

Im sorry but I wouldn't want someone who see sports as a an organized league amongst 'franchises' to come even close to the club let alone own it.

 

[RDCR07]

All you care about is debt? Really? You sad bastard

We are well stocked in everything else at the club and debt is the only thing I worry about when I see the situation or position of the club.

 

[Adzzz]

I'm not sure what to think about this, considering United's prestige status in world football and obvious commerical opportunity for one of these mega-rich blokes to potentially buy it's important to take into consideration several elements.

1.) Yes we have a feck-ton of debt.
2.) Yes it'd be nice to have unlimited funds.

When considering those two issues it's important to weigh both the pros and cons - namely the Glazers have proved as owners they seem intent on staying out of the big football decisions and left that to Sir Alex - now they also know Sir Alex is integral to our club and so this might negate any ideas they have of getting more hands-on with how the team is run but in this day especially after the Hughton and Big Sam Fiasco having owners who are less likely to get involved in the on-field matters is vital.

Now lets say a rich fella buys us - spreads his cash about buys us a player or two - maybe even renovates the South Stand...not to mention the cleared debt. Brilliant right? Sir Alex spends his last season with us knowing the debt has gone - we've lined up his replacement and he'll have money.

New manager comes in, buys a player or two - things get underway - 6 months in we're underperforming, manager sacked by the owner.

I don't want to say it's better the devil you know, but how far can you trust an owner who basically has nothing to lose and everything to gain? We're not a tin-pot club like Chelsea or City who have relatively feck all, we're Manchester United and when you think of the two most important people in our history they are two men who managed this club.

Not two owners, not a Mansour or an Abramovich.

I hope our tradition of finding and utlizing the stability a great manager brings to a club and I fear any potential take-over will eventually take away this great asset our club has developed through loyalty and making the right decisions, Sir Bobby is a footballing man and he picked and help keep Sir Alex here - when the footballing men go and the rich morons come in I fear for the fabric of our club, almost as much as I fear the debt.

 

[devilish]

I'm not sure what to think about this, considering United's prestige status in world football and obvious commerical opportunity for one of these mega-rich blokes to potentially buy it's important to take into consideration several elements.

1.) Yes we have a feck-ton of debt.
2.) Yes it'd be nice to have unlimited funds.

When considering those two issues it's important to weigh both the pros and cons - namely the Glazers have proved as owners they seem intent on staying out of the big football decisions and left that to Sir Alex - now they also know Sir Alex is integral to our club and so this might negate any ideas they have of getting more hands-on with how the team is run but in this day especially after the Hughton and Big Sam Fiasco having owners who are less likely to get involved in the on-field matters is vital.

Now lets say a rich fella buys us - spreads his cash about buys us a player or two - maybe even renovates the South Stand...not to mention the cleared debt. Brilliant right? Sir Alex spends his last season with us knowing the debt has gone - we've lined up his replacement and he'll have money.

New manager comes in, buys a player or two - things get underway - 6 months in we're underperforming, manager sacked by the owner.

I don't want to say it's better the devil you know, but how far can you trust an owner who basically has nothing to lose and everything to gain? We're not a tin-pot club like Chelsea or City who have relatively feck all, we're Manchester United and when you think of the two most important people in our history they are two men who managed this club.

Not two owners, not a Mansour or an Abramovich.

I hope our tradition of finding and utlizing the stability a great manager brings to a club and I fear any potential take-over will eventually take away this great asset our club has developed through loyalty and making the right decisions, Sir Bobby is a footballing man and he picked and help keep Sir Alex here - when the footballing men go and the rich morons come in I fear for the fabric of our club, almost as much as I fear the debt.

What makes you think that once SAF is gone, The Glazers won't do the same? What is tampa bay's track record in terms of stability and success? Id love to see United owned by someone who love the club and he can afford us. On the other hand, if we have to be owned by some cretin (football speaking) then it would be better for us that that cretin is rich and not someone whose master plan consist of fleecing the fans to pay the debt of his 'franchise'. In the first case (a rich cretin) we may end up becoming the laughing stock of football. In the second case the risk is to end up bankrupted and vanish from football's history.

 

[Adzzz]

What makes you think that once SAF is gone, The Glazers won't do the same? What is tampa bay's track record in terms of stability and success? Id love to see United owned by someone who love the club and can afford us. On the other hand, if we have to be owned by some cretin (football speaking) then it would be better for us that that cretin is rich and not someone whose master plan consist of fleecing the fans to pay the debt of his 'franchise'

I do say: "now they also know Sir Alex is integral to our club and so this might negate any ideas they have of getting more hands-on with how the team is run"

What the Glazers do while Sir Alex is at the helm can only be considered very gently, considering having Sir Alex at the helm is not the norm for a football club.

But, if one was to hazard a guess - the Glazers have watched how successful leaving the footballing decisions to the football people has been and so hopefully one would assume the ounce of intelligence they have between them would be enough to make them continue in the same vein irregardless of who was managing United.

 

[Adzzz]

As flies to wanton boys, are we to the Gods
they kill us for their sport

 

[devilish]

I do say: "now they also know Sir Alex is integral to our club and so this might negate any ideas they have of getting more hands-on with how the team is run"

What the Glazers do while Sir Alex is at the helm can only be considered very gently, considering having Sir Alex at the helm is not the norm for a football club.

But, if one was to hazard a guess - the Glazers have watched how successful leaving the footballing decisions to the football people has been and so hopefully one would assume the ounce of intelligence they have between them would be enough to make them continue in the same vein irregardless of who was managing United.

You cant really judge the Glazers on how they treated SAF.

a) the man is an icon. They simply can't sack him without risking of ending up with a fans jihad/crusade. That is something the Glazers can't afford to do

b) SAF is the perfect manager. He rarely pretend big names and he's been winning for the past 2 decades. No one is mad enough to try to cripple a winning horse.

If the club was bought by Roman/Maktoum then I seriously doubt that they would have fired SAF. I mean these people want success and recognition. I doubt that these people would sack a living legend and a born winner who prefer to keep a low profile and stick to delivering the goods rather then act like some prima donna.

Things must be judged on what would happen after SAF's departure. Actually we can have a glimpse of how the Glazers would act if things starts going wrong by looking at our 'sister' team the tampa bay bucaneers. How had they fared lately? Had the club been successful lately? Had the Glazers invested into the club? Were the Glazers intrusive in the way the club was being managed? etc etc etc.