I do keep saying that Devilish. We're agreeing with each other.
Qatar Bollocks (AKA Qatar consider MUFC takeover?)
- Thread starter Q80
- 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?
I hope this is Bollox. Even if the Red Knights had taken over, we still would have debt in some form.
The difference with these people is they may well react like some of the retards we have on here after a run of poor results.
The difference with these people is they may well react like some of the retards we have on here after a run of poor results.
devilish = irrational hate
you really have a very low level grasp of things is my observation.
Some are happy to have owners who fleece fans and put the club in great debt to get their hands on a promising 'franchise'. I dont.
Anyway I dont hate the Glazers, I just dont like our current financial situation
'franchise'
I'd echo this statement.
no one is happy with the debt. But you can either 'manage' it like the Red Knights would do, if they took over or you can surrender to some individual who would use United like the proverbial personal football..excuse my pun.
I for one would not be happy for the club that I worship to be owned by a murderer like the Russian or a camel dung selling family who happened to have found oil.
erm where have I mentioned the red knights?
At least the 'camel dung selling family' had became rich through the wealth coming from their own land and not by stealing natural resources from other countries..
Anyway my point stands the same
Rich fan and no/little debt > Rich Cretin and no/little debt > Poor cretin and ton of debt who expect fans to foot the bill for their new 'franchise'
missed the point I see.
I used red knights as an example. I am saying the Glazers are a better option any day than the Qataries. Why? for the example I gave of, if they had a tantrum, they could fire SAF or some other key staff and screw the club up.
The Glazers would not be able to do such a thing, because they would have lenders to consider.
The difference with the Edwards, who owned the club, was they knew the business of running a football club.
'franchise'
'french fries'
Are we allowed to call them a camel dung selling family? Seems a bit... what's the word?
smelly?
Cliché
Freedom Fries
The red knights are not a good example since they are a group of rich 'fans' who cant afford the club. In many ways there are no different to the Glazers. A rich fan would be similar to Moratti at Inter ie a fan who can actually afford the club.That's my no 1 choice.
My point is simple. If the Qatari guy fecks up then he will throw more money to cover his mistakes. If the Glazers fecks up then we are fecked. With so much debt a bad decision risk of hindering our future really badly. That's a much worse scenario then seeing SAF retire 'early' a situation which, in my opinion will not happen since SAF tend to bring in honors without acting like a prima donna something this ego maniacs like.
Anyway it would be nice to see how the Glazers are faring with a club which is not Manchester United. What are they doing at Tampa? Are they being intrusive? Are they investing in the club? Are Tampa being successful at the moment? Has they ever sacked a club's legend?
throwing money at a problem never will solve anything. With regards to the debt, the interested parties will not act on a whim. Sure we can make losses if we are not careful, but United is the biggest sporting errr 'francise' in the world. So there will be more than enough buyers to take over. The red Knight example if I understood it correctly was to ultimately involve regular supporters to participate in owning the club, thus the involvement of MUST.
With all due respect, the retirement of SAF 'earlier' than he wanted to retire would be disastrous for the club. That is the one thing I fear for United. No matter who takes over, we will have a huge change.
Throwing money in the wrong direction wont bring success that's for sure but not having money to pay the debts will destroy the club, putting it in a much worse situation then the one found by SAF or Busby. You choose which evil you'll prefer over the club you like.
And if a buyer comes in with a sum of money which the Glazers sees fit then they would sell whether this man is a rich camel dung merchant, Jesus Christ or Robbie Fowler's rich unknown twin. Or do you expect the Glazers to love their 'franchise' in the same way we love our CLUB?
I love the way folks assume any Arab Owner would just run things stupidly. Looks at City. How often have you seen the Sheikh get involved in club affairs?
Can you expect better from a former Camel dung merchant?
I think that's being very generous to be honest, and not just on this issue either from what I have seen.
what the feck are you on about?
I for one would not be happy for the club that I worship to be owned by a murderer like the Russian or a camel dung selling family who happened to have found oil - red dreams
you missed the point..again.
any owner can sell to any new buyer. I thought the discussion was about who we preferred?
The preference would always be for someone or an entity that did want to involve ordinary supporters...simple.
the reality these days is any arsehole with money can buy a club. The involvement of the FA is zero...supposedly they are interested in the future of football in the country.
In that respect I do have some respect for what Platini has said...though that has been read as being anti-English.
I doubt Arab owners would be that stupid. If they could keep the structure at a mere Man City and leave club affairs to the CEO Gary Coo. How much more at a miles better run club like United?
I just don't get some folks on here. You moan all day long about the Glazers. Yet don't want someone with more money than them capable of erasing our debt to possibly replace them.
In my opinion someone who sees United as a showcase of his own success has a bigger probability of not selling his priced asset then someone who can't afford his 'franchise'. FFS We are talking here about a person who took his own sister to court. Do you think that this man can care one bit about the well being of his 'franchise'? Now my argument is simple. If I had to choose between a poor cretin and a rich cretin then Ill choose the latter. At least the latter would pay for his mistakes HIMSELF and do not expect the fans to pay them for him. The club would also be a whole more financial secure with a rich cretin then someone who had burdened it with tons of debt.
BTW How is tampa fairing at the moment? Has the Glazers been intrusive there? Has they kicked out a club legend who lets say won them their last super bowl
the point of the discussion...or at least what I thought was the discussion, was if the so called 'single rich owner 'scenario would be infinitely better than the Glazer situation which of course we all agree is not ideal.
I and some others are saying no. Dervilish is saying he does not care if the Russian mafia ended up owning us
so long as the debt is no longer there.a case of the lesser of two evils is the discussion in a nut shell....
the 'ideal' would be the Barcelona model...imho of course.
Where have I even mentioned the Russian mafia?the point of the discussion...or at least what I thought was the discussion, was if the so called 'single rich owner 'scenario would be infinitely better than the Glazer situation which of course we all agree is not ideal.
I and some others are saying no. Dervilish is saying he does not care if the Russian mafia ended up owning us
a case of the lesser of two evils is the discussion in a nut shell....
the 'ideal' would be the Barcelona model...imho of course.
I believe that ralphie would put forth that a Marxist model is what is most compatible with Manchester Unitedthe point of the discussion...or at least what I thought was the discussion, was if the so called 'single rich owner 'scenario would be infinitely better than the Glazer situation which of course we all agree is not ideal.
I and some others are saying no. Dervilish is saying he does not care if the Russian mafia ended up owning us
a case of the lesser of two evils is the discussion in a nut shell....
the 'ideal' would be the Barcelona model...imho of course.
honestly I dont know how tampa are doing...gridiron is a whole different kettle of fish.
I'm sure Glazer is an arsehole. that is not the point. But they seem to have put together a business model that has not negatively affected play on the field.
2 examples.
SAF has had a free hand. If he did not have that, he would have gone.
The Rooney situation. The Glazers did loosen the purse strings to support what Sir Alex wanted done.
The two other scenarios in the EPL of single owners are City and Chelsea.
Chelsea imo is showing the strains, because Roman is having his period.
City? First thing he did was sack Sparky...how long before Mancini goes.
I think they have not shown their real colors yet is all.
Kerist....
ralphie would only be happy if only he, his family and his mates could go to the matches and United were owned by the local council.
...oh and he would not be too happy about any United 'supporters' living outside of Greater Manchester (I'm being generous here) following United.
If their plan is so good then why isnt it working at Tampa? Their only 'plan' at United is stick to SAF and pray. Hello...SAF wont last long and by the time he leaves the debt would still be here. Is it safer to leave the club in these guys hands or is it safer to leave it into the hands of someone who can actually afford it? I think the answer to that is pretty simple.
City and Chelsea are two small clubs who were lucky enough to win the lottery. They have the money but their setup, mentality and players were not good enough to match their ambition. So they kept spending spending spending, bringing in mercenaries (no world class player would sign with a small club unless he is a mercenary) who tend to have zero loyalty to the club. Its a chicken and egg situation. You need to win (they are in a desperate situation to prove to the fans that they can be successful) and yet the players and managers they bring cant match such ambition. Its difficult to go up the pecking order. Now the latter were lucky to meet Maureen who brought instant success. The former werent blessed of such honor yet. You cant really compare United with these clubs. We have the fans, we have the structure, we have the youth academy, a winning mentality and SAF is much much better then Ranieri, Hughes and Mancini. If the Mansours bought United then Im pretty confident that they wouldn't have sacked SA. These people crave for international success and recognition. How would they look if they sacked SAF and the club turned up shite?
may be its just me. I dont like dictators.
the more people that are involved, the less chance of a major feck up. Most people who know the finances of the club would agree, though there is risk, the club is being managed responsibly. Now if a single owner did buy the club and offered supporters a stake to buy into the club, through the membership program for example, I would be welcoming.
SAF leaving will happen some day..and the transition will happen...no matter who owns the club. thats not the point.
What you say about City and Chelsea is correct, if they leave, the clubs are fecked..and it will happen some day...can't wait
the best bet for the long term future of the club is to have supporters through organisations such as MUST (as flawed as it sometimes is) to have a voice.
My point is as big a problem as the debt is, I am uncomfortable with people who have no understanding of the history or even the game to own Manchester United. Not saying the Glazers have either. But the frying pan into the fire is not a solution.
All I am saying is lets not just welcome any guy who has unlimited funds, so he can clear the debt. I want to see his plans for the club.
Last paragraph is spot on RD
There's lessons to be learnt from the scousers here....the grass isn't always greener, field of cows etc
There's lessons to be learnt from the scousers here....the grass isn't always greener, field of cows etc
Where are you getting the idea that we're not going to have enough money to pay the debt? Do your research, mate; you might as well be worrying that Old Trafford might fall down one Saturday morning.
The Buccs have no relation to any of this. It's a different sport with different regulations in a different nation on a different continent; they were a bit shit when the Glazers bought them and they're still a bit shit now... so what?
And in the middle also came a while at the top, something the Buccs were incapable of pre-Glazer.