Bloomberg: Jim Ratcliffe on plans for Man Utd

[Bertie Wooster]

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?

I'd say the reason why you'd feel fully safe posting the first part of that - 'billionaire hate is fine' - is because the reverse of the second part is true in media / society, really: billionaires / people with power are pretty much the only ones that it is safe and easy to pile hate on without fearing negative reactions (and in fact getting mostly positive reactions because it's such a popular and easy target to attack).

You still obviously get hate online for all groups - but the reaction differs entirely: whether it's viewed as unacceptable 'hate speech' or acceptable criticism and in fact humorous satire, depends entirely on the demographic receiving it. And far from being 'exempt' from it, billionaire hate would fall into the latter group and be completely acceptable (unless there's an overlap and the billionaire / person in power receiving it also falls into the first group, then it could go either way).

 

[ForeverRed1]

Nice fans say he's a good talker but doesn't back it up..

Actions are going to speak louder than words, so far I like what they’ve done.

 

[Ish]

Sancho's a twat.... It's misplaced Rashford love now, keep up!

yeah trying to steer clear from some of the threads in the football forum because it’s a complete shitshow

 

[Rozay]

This could be an answer if there was at least a little bit of proportionality in this system. I can live with someone earning some dozens of millions if they are good and brave in what they are doing. But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about billionaires, that only bring problems into the world. A reasonable society would tax and expropriate them until they are cut to an okay level. Everything over 100 million is a crime to society.

You can win more than that on the fecking lottery these

If I woke up a multi billionaire tomorrow I wouldn’t be one by Sunday.

I think that’s a key phrasing though. You equate being a billionaire to some sort of lucky ticket. Why would you wake up a multi billionaire tomorrow? Perhaps your position would be different if you had said ‘if I worked to become a multi-billionaire over the next 20 years’.

People have a totally different attitude to money they have made and money they are given. The average person would give away millions to friends and family if they won the 100m on the lotto. If they devoted their whole lives to becoming the world’s best footballer, put in all the hours, took the injury and abuse that comes with it, and earned 100m, it is highly unlikely their first instinct would be to go through their phone books saying ‘hey, I just received my salary, what are your account details?’

 

[Wilt]

Brought up in a council house. Utd fan.

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

….there’s some proper arseholes on this thread.

 

[Coops73]

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.

Righto, bored now.

 

[afrocentricity]

yeah trying to steer clear from some of the threads in the football forum because it’s a complete shitshow

 

[Ish]

 

[lysglimt]

As much as I agree with Radcliffe....he really needs to show that he can do better before complaining all the time. Right now he has done absolutely nothing. Sign some good players for a decent price...then you can mouth off

 

[RedPhil1957]

Brought up in a council house. Utd fan.

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

….there’s some proper arseholes on this thread.

Stupid and nasty arseholes to be honest

 

[Prodigal7]

Brought up in a council house. Utd fan.

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

….there’s some proper arseholes on this thread.

It's the sad state of modern English and British culture.

 

[duffer]

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

Nobody in here (or anywhere) hates him for that reason.

 

[Tincanalley]

Don't let this cesspool trick you into thinking it speaks for the fanbase, it's been overrun by whining weirdos who revel in negativity.

This sentence should be placed above the counter, and on the inside of jax doors.

 

[doubleohseven]

Nobody in here (or anywhere) hates him for that reason.

Tread carefully, duffer.

 

[Tincanalley]

It never stops amazing me how easily English football fans jump into the beds of dictators, murderers and their best friends.

If you really think that way, just become a fan of City.

He isn’t already?

 

[duffer]

Tread carefully, duffer.

It's true though. Total nonsense to suggest that's why he's not liked.

 

[Charlie Yu]

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 is one thing to be a billionaire, it’s another thing to be an asshole.

I can see our fans flying out INEOS out banners after a disappointing summer transfer window. They talked all the talk but doesn’t seem to show any qualities that makes us believe they could bring us to success.

 

[RedRocket9908]

He isn’t already?

Why would any City fan have wanted us to be fully taken over? Every City fan will have been delighted that the Glazers took the offer from Sir Jim and stayed in charge of the club.

Its quite ridiculous that after 18 years of Glazers out protests there so many Man Utd fans were happy for them to do a deal that kept them in and pulling the strings.

 

[Woziak]

Anyone old enough to remember United in its prime (ie treble days) knows that that's exactly how United operated. We would invest heavily on youths and then buy a mix of young talent and unknown talent (ex Johnsen from Besiktas). The wage structure was sacrosanct. We were so terrified into breaking it that prime Roy Keane came at an inch away from signing with Juventus for a free because United refused to bulge.

Why did we do that?

A- Young players can run all day something that older players can't. I've seen absolute legends getting humiliated because they simply couldn't keep up the pace. We're seeing the decline of Casemiro with our very eyes and we'll probably see worse considering that the idiots who signed him gave him an endless contract

B- Keeping the wage structure under control mean that investment can be diverted elsewhere like the youth academy or the stadium. It also act as an incentive for players to do better. Good luck persuading some lazy bum not to spend the night on XBOX when he's on a long term contract on a 300k a week.

Regarding players leaving, well shit happens. We lost so many throughout the years such as Beckham, RVN and Ronaldo. However I'd rather have players that other clubs want and might get rather then players who keep kissing the badge while playing shit simply because no one wants them.

You do know that 95% of United fans agree with this policy whether they are generation X fans or baby boomer generation, no true United fan right now wants the club over spending on any player so if Everton won’t sell Branthwaite for £50m max, the club should simply move on to the next option.

The youth at United right now men and women is thriving, the boys under 18 won the treble the U21 ladies won the double so Wilcox in unison with Nick Cox and ETH Willing to develop youngsters only bodes well, I’d like to see E Wheatley, F McCalister and S Lacey get some minutes this season.

 

[alexthelion]

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?

 

[7even]

I’m pleasantly surprised with Sir Jim’s approach most things he says sounds reasonable. I think that for a while we have to accept two steps forward and one step back and see this as a long term project.

I look forward to the future. We soon have professionals in place when it comes to football related things and that give me confidence that we’re moving in the right direction. .

 

[ArbeitervonWien]

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.

Why would the poor be poorer? How about we just produce, what we need and give it to the people who need it? With noone between, skimming billion over billion. We may not produce 1500 different types of cars and 2600 types of different strawberry-yogurts. But who gives a feck about that?

Again, you are not able to even imagine a fair world. When you put a single developing country out of the global capitalist economy, of course it wouldn't fare well. The change will have to come globally. And it will, but as things stand in a different way, then I'd hope for. Climate change will probably lead to some kind of fascism. To rich countries shooting climate-refugees from their borders, while struggling inside the borders with natural disasters and crop failures.

This Churchill-quote, you might have believed it 60 years ago, but to cite it today is beyond me. Everyone with eyes can see that this system, that is driven by the delusion of eternal growth will kill the environment. It will kill our children and grandchildren. We have to come up with another system. Like we changed from feudalism to capitalism, we have to change now, or it will have catastrophic consequences.

You may say that a social-democracy like in the Scandinavic countries is the way to go. But they also lived way beyond their means while still profiting from global injustice.

 

[alexthelion]

Its quite ridiculous that after 18 years of Glazers out protests there so many Man Utd fans were happy for them to do a deal that kept them in and pulling the strings.

 

[devilish]

You do know that 95% of United fans agree with this policy whether they are generation X fans or baby boomer generation, no true United fan right now wants the club over spending on any player so if Everton won’t sell Branthwaite for £50m max, the club should simply move on to the next option.

The youth at United right now men and women is thriving, the boys under 18 won the treble the U21 ladies won the double so Wilcox in unison with Nick Cox and ETH Willing to develop youngsters only bodes well, I’d like to see E Wheatley, F McCalister and S Lacey get some minutes this season.

I agree with you in principle but....

I remember SAF humiliating Leeds for spending 18m for Rio Ferdinand with his famous "If Rio is worth 18m then how much is Wes's worth? 30M?" quote. Few years later he had to backtrack on it and sign Rio for.......30m. Now is Branthwaite the new Rio? I haven't watched him enough to judge though considering I rate Rio as the best CB the UK had produced in the past 30 years, the best ball playing defender of his generation and the second best CB Manchester United had throughout SAF's reign (and after) then I doubt it. However

a- A 6ft4 CB with some serious pace is rare to come by. He'll fit into a high press system + he'll be the perfect partner for Martinez
b- There aren't many CBs worth investing money on. Yoro seem to be Real Madrid Bound, Todibo is not coming to OT, Bremer would cost 50m and he's 27, Guehi will probably cost us 60m and I doubt that United know who Calafiori is
c- We mention alot the youth academy and yes its the future. However we mustn't forget that part of SAF's strategy to keep us on top was to buy the best British + Irish young talent out there. We spent silly money on Keane, Pally, Rio and Rooney

Should we spend 70m on him then? My answer is no. Would I pay 55/60m + add ons? If the scouts believe he's the man then yes.

 

[Glorio]

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?

That's not Ok either. It's a very toxic way to live. Anyway, it doesn't bother me, I just found it intriguing that folks calmly say "I hate billionaires but" like it's an expectation.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Why would any City fan have wanted us to be fully taken over? Every City fan will have been delighted that the Glazers took the offer from Sir Jim and stayed in charge of the club.

Its quite ridiculous that after 18 years of Glazers out protests there so many Man Utd fans were happy for them to do a deal that kept them in and pulling the strings.

18 months before that deal was done it looked as though the Glazers were here for the long haul and there was no end to it

Not one person I know has claimed the INEOS deal is ideal and how they’d have wanted a ‘takeover’ to happen but it’s a big step away from how it was. Stadium is finally going to get sorted and they seem to genuinely want the club to be successful, whereas Glazers didn’t care about results.

1958 have said they expect the Glazers will be gone (based on their info) by this time next year too. That remains to be seen but there’s finally a path for their exit - personally don’t think INEOS would be putting so much money in if they were going to be minority owners long term

I think it’s quite ridiculous that so many people moan about it. But to each their own

 

[Cassidy]

Brought up in a council house. Utd fan.

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

….there’s some proper arseholes on this thread.

Pays zero taxes in the UK but keeps talking about UK politics…

If he does well at the club he will be liked. If he doesn’t he won’t.

 

[ArbeitervonWien]

Brought up in a council house. Utd fan.

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

….there’s some proper arseholes on this thread.

You're trying very hard to misunderstand. Of course he is not hated because he is diligent and smart (like millions others are too, without beeing billionaires). But the system allowing people gathering harmful amounts of money is. Or he may be hated for other reasons: not paying taxes in the UK, beeing a brexiteer...

This argument of rich people beeing hated because other people are envious and they just don't work as hard is so cheap and boring. He worked so much in his life, his work is worth more than the GDP of some countries. Seems legit.

 

[RedRocket9908]

18 months before that deal was done it looked as though the Glazers were here for the long haul and there was no end to it

Not one person I know has claimed the INEOS deal is ideal and how they’d have wanted a ‘takeover’ to happen but it’s a big step away from how it was. Stadium is finally going to get sorted and they seem to genuinely want the club to be successful, whereas Glazers didn’t care about results.

1958 have said they expect the Glazers will be gone (based on their info) by this time next year too. That remains to be seen but there’s finally a path for their exit - personally don’t think INEOS would be putting so much money in if they were going to be minority owners long term

I think it’s quite ridiculous that so many people moan about it. But to each their own

The Glazers clearly arnt going anywhere and will be pulling the strings for the foreseeable future, Sir Jim's original offer was to buy 100% of the Glazers shares but Joel and Avram refused to sell as they dont want to leave.

 

[Blood Mage]

The Glazers clearly arnt going anywhere and will be pulling the strings for the foreseeable future, Sir Jim's original offer was to buy 100% of the Glazers shares but Joel and Avram refused to sell as they dont want to leave.

If we continue to be shit then the club's value will plummet and Jim will buy us on the cheap probably. They'll only stick around if there's money to be made.

 

[TrivelaDeBruno]

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.

Until signing MBappe and Bellingham unless Ive completely forgotten about someone else they purchased they’ve abandoned the “Galactico” style squad building and turned to signing younger players, all be it not on the cheap. I hope that’s what SJR is referring to there.

 

[TrivelaDeBruno]

The Glazers clearly arnt going anywhere and will be pulling the strings for the foreseeable future, Sir Jim's original offer was to buy 100% of the Glazers shares but Joel and Avram refused to sell as they dont want to leave.

Isn’t there some kind of obligation to buy the rest of the shares clause in the future?

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

I thought he comes across fantastically here.

 

[welshwingwizard]

Brought up in a council house. Utd fan.

Hated in here because he got off his backside and made a success of his life.

….there’s some proper arseholes on this thread.

No. Being a billionaire is nothing to do with hard work otherwise doctors and nurses would be rolling in it. Billionaires are a product of a broken economic system and disfunctional society. No one gets off their backside and accumulates that amount of wealth by hard work. It is done off the backs of others.

Their existence when there is such a high level of child poverty and austerity is the sign of a broken society.

The gain of billionaires is either at the expense of others either now or in the past (where it is due to inherited wealth). In some cases this is simply because they can only get to that level by not contributing to society (offshore tax havens) but in others such as Bezos' case it is literally that despite his wealth he makes more by continuing to treat and pay his workers poorly. He could choose to be a positive force for society at a marginal profit or make more profit by screwing others over. He does the latter because to be a billionaire that is what you have to so. And Ratcliffe will have taken the same unethical decisions to get where he is.

 

[Woziak]

I agree with you in principle but....

I remember SAF humiliating Leeds for spending 18m for Rio Ferdinand with his famous "If Rio is worth 18m then how much is Wes's worth? 30M?" quote. Few years later he had to backtrack on it and sign Rio for.......30m. Now is Branthwaite the new Rio? I haven't watched him enough to judge though considering I rate Rio as the best CB the UK had produced in the past 30 years, the best ball playing defender of his generation and the second best CB Manchester United had throughout SAF's reign (and after) then I doubt it. However

a- A 6ft4 CB with some serious pace is rare to come by. He'll fit into a high press system + he'll be the perfect partner for Martinez
b- There aren't many CBs worth investing money on. Yoro seem to be Real Madrid Bound, Todibo is not coming to OT, Bremer would cost 50m and he's 27, Guehi will probably cost us 60m and I doubt that United know who Calafiori is
c- We mention alot the youth academy and yes its the future. However we mustn't forget that part of SAF's strategy to keep us on top was to buy the best British + Irish young talent out there. We spent silly money on Keane, Pally, Rio and Rooney

Should we spend 70m on him then? My answer is no. Would I pay 55/60m + add ons? If the scouts believe he's the man then yes.

I’d take Ghuei over Branthwaite every day of every year, one has extreme elite pace and is exceptional on the ball the other quick, and good on the ball now if they are similar money who you taking ?

 

[Pickle85]

No. Being a billionaire is nothing to do with hard work otherwise doctors and nurses would be rolling in it. Billionaires are a product of a broken economic system and disfunctional society. No one gets off their backside and accumulates that amount of wealth by hard work. It is done off the backs of others.

Their existence when there is such a high level of child poverty and austerity is the sign of a broken society.

The gain of billionaires is either at the expense of others either now or in the past (where it is due to inherited wealth). In some cases this is simply because they can only get to that level by not contributing to society (offshore tax havens) but in others such as Bezos' case it is literally that despite his wealth he makes more by continuing to treat and pay his workers poorly. He could choose to be a positive force for society at a marginal profit or make more profit by screwing others over. He does the latter because to be a billionaire that is what you have to so. And Ratcliffe will have taken the same unethical decisions to get where he is.

I agree with the spirit of the post, but are you saying that people like Bezos and Zuckerberg (odious scumbags though they seem to be) didn't work hard to get where they are?

 

[Prodigal7]

No. Being a billionaire is nothing to do with hard work otherwise doctors and nurses would be rolling in it. Billionaires are a product of a broken economic system and disfunctional society. No one gets off their backside and accumulates that amount of wealth by hard work. It is done off the backs of others.

Their existence when there is such a high level of child poverty and austerity is the sign of a broken society.

The gain of billionaires is either at the expense of others either now or in the past (where it is due to inherited wealth). In some cases this is simply because they can only get to that level by not contributing to society (offshore tax havens) but in others such as Bezos' case it is literally that despite his wealth he makes more by continuing to treat and pay his workers poorly. He could choose to be a positive force for society at a marginal profit or make more profit by screwing others over. He does the latter because to be a billionaire that is what you have to so. And Ratcliffe will have taken the same unethical decisions to get where he is.

So because he owns companies and employs people he must be evil?
You’re inevitably saying there should be no private capital. Full blown communism if the only way.... I can’t even begin to state how ludicrous that is.

 

[welshwingwizard]

So because he owns companies and employs people he must be evil?
You’re inevitably saying there should be no private capital. Full blown communism if the only way.... I can’t even begin to state how ludicrous that is.

Well that's clearly not what I said. I said there shouldn't be billionaires. You could easily do this by taxing every pound about 1 billion at 100%.
And as for a healthy economy and wealth creation that would make more sense. If you distribute wealth from top to bottom it is more likely to be circulated and spent rather than kept and not touched.

People have no concept of what a billion pound is. There is no need to have a billion pounds let alone multiple billion. Trust me if you stop billionaires from having more they won't notice. And it won't stop aspirational entrepreneurs from accumulating the wealth they want.

 

[welshwingwizard]

I agree with the spirit of the post, but are you saying that people like Bezos and Zuckerberg (odious scumbags though they seem to be) didn't work hard to get where they are?

I'm sure they worked hard. I'm arguing that it wasn't working hard that made them billionaires.

 

[Prodigal7]

Well that's clearly not what I said. I said there shouldn't be billionaires. You could easily do this by taxing every pound about 1 billion at 100%.
And as for a healthy economy and wealth creation that would make more sense. If you distribute wealth from top to bottom it is more likely to be circulated and spent rather than kept and not touched.

People have no concept of what a billion pound is. There is no need to have a billion pounds let alone multiple billion. Trust me if you stop billionaires from having more they won't notice. And it won't stop aspirational entrepreneurs from accumulating the wealth they want.

Your post clearly implies that anyone seeking to make millions or billions is evil because they would exploit their workers as owners of a company. Company ownership is the only way to make that kind of money. There's a reason nobody has taxed income at 100% at any income bracket - it does way more harm than good for everyone (especially the less well off) because the investors don't bother and no income is generated at all for the community or anyone else.

The bottom line is that preventing the rich from becoming richer doesn't help the poorer, it has the opposite effect despite the wealth disproportionately benefitting the richer. But that's not the point here, some people are so full of rage at the thought of someone else having so much money that fairness and logic go out the window. It's the epitome of narcissism that some people would rather try to hack down a wealthy person just to see them lose money, even though they're harming themselves and the less well off in the process.