I would trust formal SEC filings stating that there was an inability to prove funds rather than Kaveh on Sky saying Jassim disputed this and was considering legal action (funnily enough nothing has happened in the 5 months since). The reality is that the bid was either effectively a state bid, which no United fan should have wanted, or if it wasn't then there were always going to be serious questions about where the funding was coming from.
Bloomberg: Jim Ratcliffe on plans for Man Utd
- Thread starter #07
- Start date
It's not the manager, it's Ratcliffe, and his desire to be like Madrid. Do you think the market will be better by Christmas?
The last update we had was in April and said Shiekh Jassim had begun legal action against the club and Sir Jim, obviously we wont know whats going on with that action as whatever is happening will be kept under wraps.
Why the billionaire hate though? If you had a chance to be one, would you not take it?
I'm assuming he meant in the context of how they do transfers and utilise money well - given the fact that was the topic of conversation.
He was referring to how they'd managed to win CL titles and redo their ground while only have a £200m net spend. In comparison to what United had acheived out of their £1bn net spend. They've also managed to bring in plenty of top young talent, and ship out some older ones (mostly in midfield) to leave their squad looking in a very healthy position going forward.
So he was meaning that's the kind of 'elite club' on a par with United that he'd like to aspire towards emulating going forward. He could hardly compare us to smaller teams like Brighton and Brentford, however well run at the moment. Or big spending oil teams like City and PSG. So Madrid is a good example of what can be achieved if you are well run and make good transfer decisions. Same as us under Fergie. And they also have had the similar comparison to the ground refurbishment going on, which we now face.
I get the comparison and the aspiration. But it wasn't some kind of daft claim that we're going to suddenly start winning loads of CL's or snapping up the Bellingham's and Mbappe's in the short to mid term. Just that, long term, that's the kind of slick, well run template he's aiming at.
Couldn't have explained it better.
I dont know why fans use the buzz word of Madrid and aspiration and jump straight to "Madrid would sack their manager if they finished 8th". When it was so obvious he was talking about the club as a whole rather than just the manager.
He went onto say Madrid have a net spend of 200m and United 1.1bn. The 900m being used to build their state of the art stadium.
He also went onto saying, after spending all that United have 0 players valued at 100m whereas Real Madrid have quite a few.
Jassim is a died in the wall socialist
No. I'd rather be a moral billionaire. Poor in everything, but kept warm by my morality.
Sorry you can't pay with morality hereNo. I'd rather be a moral billionaire. Poor in everything, but kept warm by my morality.
Dammit. Do you accept doge coins and a voucher for two at "happy endings" ?
So what do you not like so far? That his ambition is to be as good as the best club who just won the CL?
And why would they do so if the deal was lucrative or genuine? No point in looking back, I focus on the present and my confidence with Ineos is so much higher than before without
I think you missed my point. But maybe because my English is a bit shit.
New on the internet?
Well he can't speak yet, can he.
If I woke up a multi billionaire tomorrow I wouldn’t be one by Sunday.
Good to hear from our “owners” for once, nothing too controversial in my opinion, hope the cnuts get it right.
In my opinion, from the shit show we’ve had from the last 10 or so years, this seems fairly refreshing.
I have little knowledge or opinion of the type of guy Ratcliffe is but people on here bringing up his brexit/torie affiliations need to shut the feck up and worry about how he runs our club rather than worrying about if he tax exiles in Monaco or wipes his arse with satin fecking toilet paper. Bore off.
In my opinion, from the shit show we’ve had from the last 10 or so years, this seems fairly refreshing.
I have little knowledge or opinion of the type of guy Ratcliffe is but people on here bringing up his brexit/torie affiliations need to shut the feck up and worry about how he runs our club rather than worrying about if he tax exiles in Monaco or wipes his arse with satin fecking toilet paper. Bore off.
He's a billionaire - what do you expect?
Have you see the current Labour Party?
I got what he was saying, but the structure he is putting in place isnt even at Real Madrid. Perez plays a role in the types of players Madrid sign, I doubt this is what we are trying to setup?
He is a huge part of it. For example, You would be mad to think City would have 6 out of the 7 last titles without Pep.
They either talk too much or don't talk at all.
The only thing they don't do is "meaningful action".
God!
The only thing they don't do is "meaningful action".
God!
Of course you can take money from the rich arbitrarily. But I wouldn't do it. I would have a clear system. Everything beyond 100 Million is property of the community. That's it. Very clear, very easy. Everybody knows how it is. Noone would have any restraints as it makes no difference if you have 100 million or 100 billion for an individual.
And of course also a western society can work this way. In fact, it could work much better than it does today as our system is barely working at the moment. It depends on exploiting the common people and even much more the poor in developing countries. And it's destroying our environment. It will lead us to the first anthropological mass extinction. I mean, how fecking bad can a system work?
My whole opinion about that matter has nothing to do with envy and narcissism (okay, you have a point with narcissism, I can't deny that). You're just stuck so deep in capitalism (a system build by mighty, wealthy men for mighty, wealthy men) that you can't even imagine a fair world, as proven by the absurd point you make with making poor people poorer by preventing gaining tax from the rich. How about them being fecking paid for the work they are doing, without skimming off profits to an ridiculously high extend?
Last edited:
Of course I am against anybody having that much wealth. You may think that it's contradicting to then support a modern football club and therefore a global company. But I see it this way: while the world is what it is, I at least enjoy football and my favorite team. You really can't boycott all global companies in today's world. And even if you do, it makes no difference. You have to destroy the whole system. So I keep being a fan of Man Utd while loahting anybody rich enough to own it.
Last edited:
Some less obvious snippets I sensed from the interview:
- EtH leaving/staying is a big decision and can't really be considered because the full management team has not yet been assembled because of the gardening leave issues.
- the players were consulted on whether EtH should stay or not. I guess their feedback must have been mostly positive given the decision to persist.
- EtH leaving/staying is a big decision and can't really be considered because the full management team has not yet been assembled because of the gardening leave issues.
- the players were consulted on whether EtH should stay or not. I guess their feedback must have been mostly positive given the decision to persist.
Thatcher's reign started that lean, especially as she backed apartheid and such. Murdoch (amongst others) just used her the way he used Blair.
Starmer has no such backing as he's in the way of what Murdoch really wants. Ultimately, he's a centrist. A solicitor of conscience. He'll cautiously lean right but abandon course if it doesn't work.
'Worrying about club first' is what they're doing.
Ratcliffe publicly backed brexit only to run off as the consequences hit.
Those calling him out on this dangerous behaviour are correct when wondering if he'll do the same with United. It's yourself who needs to put their politics in place.
As you admit, you have 'little knowledge' of who Ratcliffe is.
Last edited:
I’d say the cheating is a much bigger factor.
Similarly, do you think Pep would have won anything major at United? He would have 0 PL and 0 CL with us.
When I say I have “little knowledge” of Ratcliffe it’s probably as much knowledge as you have.
Yes I know all the brexit stuff etc but I have little knowledge of the man and his intentions with united, no one does and that would be the same with any owners we can only go on what he tells us and then react/comment accordingly when he does or does not deliver but bringing up his brexit and Tory affiliations is irrelevant here.
If people want to talk about his politics do it in another forum or thread, this one is about his discussion with Bloomberg and his plans with United.
Well, Tory policy is to 'fail upward'. Rewards for public failure whilst going in hard on the vulnerable. Well crafted (and public funded) PR campaigns.
SJR set out to hire a new coach and failed. He's in a public dispute about his ideal DOF. Transfer targets are not landing.
Here comes another interview in which he scolds the previous administration (whom he has recently enriched), points out how mismanaged we are and how it 'has to stop'.
However, what consequences await Sir Jim if he continues to fail?
It is a legitimate concern and should not be readily dismissed.
Whether it’s giving the money to the community or creating a 100% tax it’s the same thing. The money it raises will be far less than just taxing them a smaller % of it. Everyone (especially the poor) will be poorer. That’s why even left leaning governments don’t enact that type of policy and it’s why I stand by my narcissism and envy remark.
Capitalism has its faults but it’s like Churchills description of democracy. It’s the worst form of society, except for all the others. Maybe the happenings with Phillip Green etc can result in some stronger corporate governance laws in favour of workers. But People don’t have an appreciation for capitalism because it’s how the western world has developed and has become the norm. People haven’t had to endure the alternatives. Labour under Blair and the Scandinavian countries are an example of a fair capitalism. Ie those that can’t support themselves are given support to make them comfortable in life mainly through tax from the rich, but outside of that people are free to make whatever life they can and want.
If it wasn’t for capitalism poorer countries that serve a globally integrated capitalist economy would be in abject poverty far more severely than they are right now.
Depends what that involves surely? and some of those chances would involve you being a bit of a cnut...
Billionaire hate is fine, look at the internet.... People hate every one and everything why would the rich be exempt from that?
It's got absolutely nothing to do with politics. Talking about Tory policy being to 'fail upward' (was that in their manifesto, btw, or maybe the campaign literature...?) has precisely zero bearing on how SJR will run a football club. I can't stand the tories but you're talking rubbish here.
Sweet, hate filled world, indeed!
You can be facetious all day, but if you genuinely can't see how Tories have enriched themselves over the last fourteen years whilst failing at their ministerial occupation, using a pliant media with publicly funded pr, you need to pay closer attention.
Considering the ideological purge of WFH staff, failure to hire a new manager, transfer negotiations not going to plan, the Newcastle stand-off over Ashworth contra public announcements and interviews, this is going exactly as feared.
It's early, I concede, but it's not an inspiring start and Ratcliffe's ubiquitous media presence, given his political convictions, may be more deliberate than assumed.
Fair play to Ratcliffe if he gets it right, but now we need tangible, consistent results. No more public announcements, 'Wembley of the North' or 'big interviews', please.
I notice you also did not answer the key question in my original post, which you clearly have read. Did not mind giving an audience your opinion of my 'take', though.
Anyway, try now:
What happens to Ratcliffe if he continues to fail?
Last edited:
Can't say I like it, but it is what it is. I don't hate you though
These smiles are shit though ain't they?
Stop hating, afro!Can't say I like it, but it is what it is. I don't hate you though
These smiles are shit though ain't they?
- and yes, they are shit!Could never hate you either, brother, even with your misplaced Sancho love
I jest.I don't think he has failed at the moment, so think your 'continue to fail' makes zero sense. He's had very little time to do anything. And I imagine the same thing that would happen to any major shareholder in a business - they'd either persevere until they got it right or sell up/water down their influence. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with business. What do you think he'd do and why do you think it has anything to do with his political affiliation, beyond a weird comparison you've drawn in your mind between the Tories and how they've run the country and the co-owner of a football club.
Sancho's a twat.... It's misplaced Rashford love now, keep up!Stop hating, afro!
Could never hate you either, brother, even with your misplaced Sancho love
What 'makes sense' isn't determined by your opinion, or what you imagine.
Anyway, the question doesn't need to take Ineos' underwhelming start into consideration. It is a hypothetical.
Your insistence on refusing to answer it directly is the telling factor.
Good ol' Marcus. He will be texting Southgate all sorts of crazy nonsense.
I did answer it. Directly. Did you even read my response. You actually ignored the question I asked after answering. You hate the Tories, I get it, I certainly don't like them either. But equating SJR's ownership to their running of the country is lazy and facile.