Hopefully the fans, both online and in Manchester, keep up the pressure on the Glazers. An inevitably short return to form or a few transfers don't change the big picture: we will never compete for the league with the Glazers as owners.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe: I want to buy Manchester United | Will make a bid for the club [Telegraph]
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Feking Goblin-boy. This jackoff has been trying and failing at playing billionaire owner. Atleast there are other siblings willing to sell, even Rat-tail. God forbid we endup with a gobsh*t like James Dolan (Knick’s owner) who actually looks for fights with their fans.
Last edited:
I always understood it was Joel who pushed for the purchase of United?
Pretty sure their dad, Malcolm, got the deal through while Joel is seen as the most involved Glazer e.g. loves Martial, etc.
Avram loves the dividends, Joel is the one who has a vague interest in football.
Nah it was Avram, their dad was just the lead name as he was still alive and top of the family business.
Where did you read this?
I read it ages ago. If it matters dig deeper. To me they are all the same any way so don’t care to.
What would a realistic time frame for this cat (or someone else legitimate) to take control of the club? Multiple months? Years?
Weeks.
Whoever buys the club eventually will have to abide to the anti glazer law. Must have the funds and cant load debt onto the club, so by this alone any new owner will be better
Thanks.
If they accepted an offer today the due dillignace on a billion pound takeover would likely take months.
Just matters in the context, as I've read it was Joel who wanted the club. Ties in with him also wanting to keep it more than the other syballings, and him being more hands on.
Go feck up another NFL team or get some poor NBA franchise moved to Hawaii but please just go and leave us alone.
It took boehly a matter of weeks didn't it? 8 Weeks max unless that completely flew under my radar and it was going on longer than I thought
The paperwork might be fast tracked if the Glazers are linked to a fascist government which brutally invades another country and United are seized by the government
Hard to take the rest of the post seriously after reading this part.
I remember capacity being increased to take advantage of ticket demand which exceeded sales. Easily understandable commercial decision. In what way was Old Trafford at 21st century standards as of 2005? I suspect if ticket demand still exceeded sales to the same degree, the Glazers would be keen to expand capacity.
On player investment, the reality is that Utd was often outspent by rivals for most of the premier league history. It reportedly took Fergie's threat to resign in 1998 for the board to agree the investment that brought in Dwight Yorke and Jaap Stam. That happened to be the first time we outspent our rivals since the EPL started.
Some Martin Edward fans and historical revisionists now suggest the signings of Djemba Djemba, Liam Miller, Alan Smith, Kleberson, were well understood as part of a planned squad transition. This made me laugh! Here is a Guardian quote from one of the supporters' association justifying fans booing the team and Ferguson in 2005:
"What happened on Saturday was a build-up of ill feeling that has gone on for a long time," Johnny Flacks, the founding member of the Independent Manchester United Supporters' Association (Imusa), said last night. "The supporters have been accustomed to mediocrity for too long and this was the moment when they decided that enough was enough. You can argue whether it was good, bad or indifferent to boo the manager but what other option do supporters have to show their displeasure?
"The level of discontent at Old Trafford has reached proportions that I never thought it would and the great pity is that Ferguson does not deserve this when you look at what he has achieved in the past.
"It's just a shame he didn't leave after we had won the treble in 1999 or when he initially said he would retire [in 2002] because ever since then there have been serious levels of underachievement. Over the last four years some of his signings have been so questionable that you have to wonder whether he has even seen these players before buying them.
Last edited:
We won a game and now the fraudulent De Jong stories are done. If anyone is in doubt how badly and reactionary we're run, you only need to look at this example
You seem to be asking why a stadium back in the early 2000's wasn't up to to what we now consider 21st century standards 2 decades later. In 2004/ 005 it was modern as obviously the majority of it was built in the late 20th century. Back then it had a 5 star UEFA rating and hosted CL finals, Internationals etc.
Circa 2004/05 which top club stadium was more modern or had undergone more recent development?
Anfield?
Highbury?
San Siro?
Nou Camp?
Bernabeu?
Stadio Delle Alpi?
You are REALLY missing the bigger picture in regards to the Glazer ownership.
As a PLC, United had the best in class, in most of the positions to do their jobs. Busines people running the business, football people running the football operations.
Investments were made throughout the whole club. That Investment was nowhere near the same after the takeover. All we ever heard from SAF post 2005 was, "there's no value in the market", in regards to the player purchases. There was also no state of the art Investment in the stadium or training ground.
Had you ever been to Old Trafford in those years after the upgrades from the early 90's? For its time, it was a fantastic stadium. For the times it was up there with the best. To say anything else, suggeats to me you never went.
Like everything, things move on. Old Trafford hasn't.
The early 2000s was a time of major stadium projects. Wembley and the Emirates come to mind. Our main domestic rival, Arsenal, started work on the Emirates in 2004 and completed this in 2006. You don't think Utd who were more profitable and more cash rich (with increasing dividend payments) could have modernised Old Trafford to keep up with Arsenal and get it to be at par with some of the then new stadium projects at the time?
You also don't think we deserved more than the likes of Djemba Djemba and Kleberson considering that for the vast majority of EPL history, we were outspent by our rivals in player investment?
Here is what I think. The club has been run for decades, going back long before Glazer, to maximize profit for the owners/shareholders. It's probably why Fergie was seemingly ambivalent about the Glazer takeover. Nothing fundamentally changed except the narrative fallacy most now subscribe to which seems to portray the pre-Glazer PLC as run by well-meaning fellow country men (not these bloody foreigners!) who wanted what's best for the club.
The retirement of Fergie and the influx of money into football from all sorts of characters/states has just exposed the constraints of our profit-first and owner-enrichment model. This club was long lost to commerce.
Nice overview of how many were protesting and love the bit when Sancho scores and Stretford End erupts 
You seem to be having a hard time accepting that circa 2005 Old Trafford was modern. You are comparing it with two stadiums that hadn't seen development in decades and as a result had become so dilapidated that they to be demolished or abandoned. Old Trafford wasn't in that state back then it was still one of the best stadiums in Europe.
What did you want United to do demolish Old Trafford in 2005 and rebuild it despite spending fortunes the previous decade expanding and renovating it in 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000 & ironically 2005?
Last edited:
His point is still valid, although I do agree that Glazers are another level of mega leeches
What point?
100 per cent.
A few days ago we were being linked with Meunier and Hakimi at right back. Today I read that Brandon Williams is seen as an option.
A few days ago we were still in for De Jong. Today I read its dead.
These Antony reports...Are they just blowing smoke or is it legit? I'm sceptical. Given how reactively we're run I wouldn't be surprised if it all depends on the Southampton result. Win and the Glazers feel the pressure is off and leave it. Lose and they panic and slap down £70-80m.
Its a shambles. There's no plan. The club is run tinpot. If we succeed this season it'll be because they lucked into some great transfers after lucking into Ten Hag. This wasn't some well orchestrated operation like what City did to prepare the way for Pep with Soriano and Begiristain coming in.
If we had owners who a) cared and b) knew how to run a company we'd be much better off. Instead we got a bunch of trust fund kids living off what their Dad gave them.
Looks like the Liverpool result had taken the sting out of it for the glazers
That the PLC was also geared towards making money for the shareholders more than funding money to the football club. I want to be absolutely clear though that the Glazers are tight old bastards who aren't good for the club and much more harmful than the old PLC.
I'm not too sure many disagree with a PLC paying there shareholders, especially when they're successful. However, we're no longer successful, and that is largely to do with the Glazers.
So, the bottom line is, Glazers need to go.
We were successful under Glazers when Fergie was managing us. We are not successful due to a variety of reasons, one of them being Glazers. Managers and CEOs can be fired but owners can't be unless there is a revolution. I'm fully onboard with the protests and that Glazers should go. Think a manager like Ten Hag may be ultimately more important than ownership change for success, however.
Until we need to change manager again and the shitty owners have not put the right structures in place to make sure it happens correctly.
Meanwhile the facilities will continue to rot due to lack of infrastructure development. And lack of commercial success and progress along with dividends and debt mean strengthening on the pitch vs our rivals becomes a struggle. Especially as we’ll continue to make expensive transfer mistakes because we have not bothered to bring in best in class above the manager on the footballing side.
It's still a fair point. The Glazers don't necessarily prevent success. But they're also certainly not increasing the chances
Sad thing is we didn't realise the ladder was burning from the bottom that no other would be able to follow in his steps until the Glazers are gone.
They prevent it by allowing incompetent people to run the club. That is their decision, if you are hiring people not fit for purpose you are the problem, especially when you do not remove them when they are continuously failing for years.
The second point is they are preventing it with their lack of investment in the clubs infrastructure and training facilities.
I agree with everything you have said.
Get a grip.
Come on Jim, do something.