The Red Knights

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
34,327
Yeah, I am of the personal opinion of that either a legislation is brought in to get the 50 + 1 rule, or fans put their money where their mouth is and put the money in front of Glazers to purchase.

We all know that there is no one great solution as they all have their pros and cons. However, at least you're dismissing a certain way of people did something and giving a reasoned explanation as why and an alternative. But some people I read on here, and generally on social media, dismiss the work that others are doing in trying to get the Glazers out and then add no valid alternatives.
Yeah definitely feels like legislation is our only hope of getting proper owners again one day
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
Yeah definitely feels like legislation is our only hope of getting proper owners again one day
I'm also of the opinion enough join together to purchase the club. How I don't know right now, however, I'm sure there would be a way.
 

Eriku

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
16,122
Location
Oslo, Norway
feck are you on about.
People like you he was referring to, in fairness.
He was responding to someone making fun of the Red Knights takeover. He said that at least they’re trying, and that we should try to do something.

50 quid, 50 million, it doesn’t matter, they won’t sell for that and it’s an empty gesture.

People like me? And what am I like, then?
 

Seven Seas Sardines

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
3,088
Location
Bolivia til 2024
Can Jim Ratcliffe join the knights? He didn't want to buy United years ago, but lots have changed since then so maybe he could be happy owning a part of it and make Nice our daughter club?
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,182
Location
Hell on Earth
Can Jim Ratcliffe join the knights? He didn't want to buy United years ago, but lots have changed since then so maybe he could be happy owning a part of it and make Nice our daughter club?
He can't afford it -- he's worth only £17Billion. Its like you have £100k and you are going to spend £25k on a car?
Why would he spend £4+billion of his net worth on a club whose financial returns arent better than what he can get elsewhere? Opportunity costs.
 

MichaelRed

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,649
He can't afford it -- he's worth only £17Billion. Its like you have £100k and you are going to spend £25k on a car?
Why would he spend £4+billion of his net worth on a club whose financial returns arent better than what he can get elsewhere? Opportunity costs.
Wish I was worth only 17 billion :(
 

Seven Seas Sardines

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
3,088
Location
Bolivia til 2024
He can't afford it -- he's worth only £17Billion. Its like you have £100k and you are going to spend £25k on a car?
Why would he spend £4+billion of his net worth on a club whose financial returns arent better than what he can get elsewhere? Opportunity costs.
Guess someone doesn't read before they write. I asked if he could join the knights and be part owner. 1-2 billion max...
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,182
Location
Hell on Earth
Guess someone doesn't read before they write. I asked if he could join the knights and be part owner. 1-2 billion max...
No billionaire will allow themselves not to be in control of their entity/investment. They just don't buy into an entity to be a minority shareholder, controlled by another billionaire/s. They will always like to control it -- but as Radcliffe said, United is over-priced (or too expensive for him.)
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,349
Location
France
No billionaire will allow themselves not to be in control of their entity/investment. They just don't buy into an entity to be a minority shareholder, controlled by another billionaire/s. They will always like to control it -- but as Radcliffe said, United is over-priced (or too expensive for him.)
That's not exactly true, this is exactly what happens with american franchises, now the difference is that those franchises guarantee money returns. Though I agree with your general point, Radcliffe isn't selling his current assets(mainly shares) who are generating revenue for United who are not guaranteed to generate a revenue while also not being fully in control.

Edit: But to support your point, it has been reported that even QIA baulked at the potential price of United before purchasing PSG.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,317
He can't afford it -- he's worth only £17Billion. Its like you have £100k and you are going to spend £25k on a car?
Why would he spend £4+billion of his net worth on a club whose financial returns arent better than what he can get elsewhere? Opportunity costs.
That’s not the same thing even slightly. :lol:
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
23,789
No billionaire will allow themselves not to be in control of their entity/investment. They just don't buy into an entity to be a minority shareholder, controlled by another billionaire/s. They will always like to control it -- but as Radcliffe said, United is over-priced (or too expensive for him.)
Just to highlight how expensive that 4 billion is: that's what Disney paid for Lucasfilm. fecking STAR WARS cost as much as United would, and let's face it, one of those is an infinitely more reliable moneymaker.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,349
Location
France
That’s not the same thing even slightly. :lol:
Funnily enough it's worse than that because you don't exactly have 100k, you need to sell profitable assets to get them.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,182
Location
Hell on Earth
That's not exactly true, this is exactly what happens with american franchises, now the difference is that those franchises guarantee money returns. Though I agree with your general point, Radcliffe isn't selling his current assets(mainly shares) who are generating revenue for United who are not guaranteed to generate a revenue while also not being fully in control.

Edit: But to support your point, it has been reported that even QIA baulked at the potential price of United before purchasing PSG.
I was generalising but you get the point. The case of Arsenal -- where two billionaire minority owners were on the board at one stage. The town/club wasn't big enough for the two of them. One had to go.

The only potential suiter will be one who looks at United irrationally as an investment like a bone saw hobbyist or so wealthy that its pocket change. So if the Glazers do sell up, we better not bitch; we will need to basically bend over, hope there's some KY gel available, and stay silent as much as possible.