Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedRocket9908 said:
The fans should not have stood back and done nothing while the Glazers did a deal that kept them in, we protested for them to leave for 18 years and should have got rid of them when we had the chance.

Please stop with the claims that Shiekh Jassim refused to provide proof of funding as thats simply untrue and any claims that he didnt provide proof are purely speculation.
Click to expand...
The fans protested for 18 years, and absolutely nothing happened because the Glazers couldn't care less. It wasn't until the Glazers themselves decided to look into the option to sell that this happened. Further protests would have done nothing. Either the bidders offered enough to get the Glazers to agree to a full sale (both Ratcliffe and Jassim tried and failed), or they didn't.

Your second line is extremely hypocritical considering your own claims. My claims in that regard are backed by the official SEC filings, which could result in severe penalties if shown to be lies. On the flip side, 'a source close to Jassim's bid team' went to a reporter to claim that Jassim refuted those claims and would enquire with the SEC about a corrective statement. Something we haven't heard anything about. While there's no 100% guarantee, it's clear that one of the options is far more likely to be true than the other.
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Some of you lot should probably read the articles instead of reacting to the headlines and knee jerk social media posts. It's not just the womens team having to make a sacrifice, the academy teams are in the exact same position. Most of the administration staff are being moved around too. This is what happens when you make upgrades to a training ground. It's just temporary.

And I know some will say that the mens first team should be the ones using portacabins. Yeah I'm sure that would go down well with the players and with the fanbase when we have an unhappy squad on our hands and are struggling. Ratcliffe has said that focusing on the mens team is their priority for now, hopefully they can shift focus on the womens team soon.
Click to expand...
If Ratcliffe said good morning check your watch never him and his ilk for lying about Brexit and destroying this country for decades
 
Rojofiam said:
Not sure what to make of the players we've showed real interest in so far.

The likes of Zirkzee and Ugarte are floor-raiser signings, definitely, but I feel like we could do so much better. Despite improving the current side, they're not players that will take us to the level of Arsenal and Manchester City. For that to happen, we need to sign the absolute best U21 talents out there, like Neves and Yoro. Obviously, you can't sign all of these gems, but whenever you have a realistic chance to get one of them, you need to prioritize them. The good thing is that there's undeniable interest towards both Yoro and Neves as well, despite the slim chance of getting either of them this summer...and with Yoro being courted by Madrid, and Neves basically being a really similar player to another elite U21 talent that already plays for us in Mainoo, not getting either of them is acceptable...but if we didn't have Mainoo, Neves would have to be our absolute number 1 target and we would need to do everything we can to get him...but thankfully we do have Mainoo. :lol:

I think it's possible that we'll mostly target these floor-raiser type of signings until we're in a more acceptable state as a team and club, and then we'll be going for the best talents in each position, as we'll be a more attractive destination to them as well then...and floor-raiser signings with limited ceilings won't really improve us anymore, so we'll have no choice anyway. However, if there's a realistic chance to get a world class talent like Neves or Yoro in a position we desperately need, I expect us to pay big money for them even in this early stage of the Ineos rebuild. Ratcliffe also implied that players like Mbappé are rather the icing on the cake when your "project" is in its latter stages and you have already assembled a good team.
Click to expand...

Given our bottom is so terrible it makes total sense to try and bring the minimum level up. We'd avoid some proper shit results (3-0 at home to Bournemouth, 4-0 against Palace away) more often if we had a better bottom line.

As you've written and as Ratcliffe says, it makes a lot more sense to suggest an Mbappe is an icing on a cake signing. We need a solid, consistent core of players that play week in, week out and give at least 8/10 and we'd boost ourselves so much in doing so.

I absolutely agree we need to get the gems but it's better for now to start with solid players that are better than our squad players to bring the overall quality up. I don't think we can honestly afford the gems at the minute so we're probably hamstrung in that department until we get better at scouting and operationally with regards to unearthing gems before they get expensive.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Lots of things can be worrying, but no decent source linked us credibly to Southgate, and if we wanted him, we simply needed to wait one month, considering how we’ve been willing to wait long term on Ashworth and our new CEO, it’s pretty fecking crystal clear now that we didn’t want Southgate.
So claiming it’s “worrying” means absolutely feck all.
Click to expand...
The athletic stated he was considered. So yes good sources have linked us to him.
 
The Irish Connection said:
Movement needs to start happening soon. Was expecting a more proactive window. Hopefully things start happening in the next week or so.
Click to expand...
I think it’s going to be a rather quiet Summer. We will not overpay and if we cannot find value, we will just use this season to assess the team and its needs a little better. I don’t see us spending significant amount of money on individual players. INEOS will want to send a statement out there, one that will make it clear that we will not overpay for players anymore.
 
MadDogg said:
The fans protested for 18 years, and absolutely nothing happened because the Glazers couldn't care less. It wasn't until the Glazers themselves decided to look into the option to sell that this happened. Further protests would have done nothing. Either the bidders offered enough to get the Glazers to agree to a full sale (both Ratcliffe and Jassim tried and failed), or they didn't.

Your second line is extremely hypocritical considering your own claims. My claims in that regard are backed by the official SEC filings, which could result in severe penalties if shown to be lies. On the flip side, 'a source close to Jassim's bid team' went to a reporter to claim that Jassim refuted those claims and would enquire with the SEC about a corrective statement. Something we haven't heard anything about. While there's no 100% guarantee, it's clear that one of the options is far more likely to be true than the other.
Click to expand...
These protests don't really do anything, why would they? End of the day they're in it for profit not fans approval, and it doesn't really impact their profit when we still have full stadium at every game, our brand is still very well recognized and desirable and our fans across the world purchase our merchandise in abundance. These protests exist more for the peace of mind of fans who can take comfort in knowing they've done everything they could to voice their opinion but they don't impact owners directly.
 
Sarni said:
These protests don't really do anything, why would they?
Click to expand...

The protests are litterally what pushed the Glazers in to looking to sell their shares in the first place.

If the fans would have protested against Sir Jim's minority buy-in which keeps the Glazers in charge of the club he probably would have walked away from the deal leaving the Glazers having to either stay as they are with the protests continuing, accept Shiekh Jassim's offer, or go back to Sir Jim and ask him to buy a majority share instead.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The protests are litterally what pushed the Glazers in to looking to sell their shares in the first place.

If the fans would have protested against Sir Jim's minority buy-in which keeps the Glazers in charge of the club he probably would have walked away from the deal leaving the Glazers having to either stay as they are with the protests continuing, accept Shiekh Jassim's offer, or go back to Sir Jim and ask him to buy a majority share instead.
Click to expand...
It's quite far fetched to say that these protests caused them to sell the 25%. Very much doubt it was the case.

I know it's a romantic premise to think fans had this power, but reality is the money was probably more appealing. They knew timing was right and wanted to pocket the profits.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The protests are litterally what pushed the Glazers in to looking to sell their shares in the first place.

If the fans would have protested against Sir Jim's minority buy-in which keeps the Glazers in charge of the club he probably would have walked away from the deal leaving the Glazers having to either stay as they are with the protests continuing, accept Shiekh Jassim's offer, or go back to Sir Jim and ask him to buy a majority share instead.
Click to expand...
On what basis? Which protests?
 
Sarni said:
It's quite far fetched to say that these protests caused them to sell the 25%. Very much doubt it was the case.

I know it's a romantic premise to think fans had this power, but reality is the money was probably more appealing. They knew timing was right and wanted to pocket the profits.
Click to expand...

Super League failure is what caused them to rethink their position not the fans.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Post a link to that story then and the Athletic journo that claimed it.
Click to expand...
Laurie Whitwell did say on Stretford Paddock that Southgate was discussed but going by his other reports and also Ornstein's, he wasn't one of the serious candidates like Tuchel or De Zerbi. Ornstein poured cold water on the Southgate links throughout most of the process.
 
Sarni said:
we will just use this season to assess the team and its needs a little better
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll skip this season then.

Can someone please give them a season review compilation and be done with the assessments?
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Laurie Whitwell did say on Stretford Paddock that Southgate was discussed but going by his other reports and also Ornstein's, he wasn't one of the serious candidates like Tuchel or De Zerbi. Ornstein poured cold water on the Southgate links throughout most of the process.
Click to expand...

Which probably means his name came up in the process and was instantly dismissed as not being a serious candidate.
 
macheda14 said:
With this it doesn’t actually matter. The new or refurbished stadiums would just be called Old Trafford by anyone who cares to talk about it.
Click to expand...
I don't mind a sponsor as long as we keep Old Trafford in the name.
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Which probably means his name came up in the process and was instantly dismissed as not being a serious candidate.
Click to expand...
I agree. The links were mostly media driven based on Brailsford and Ashworth's connections to Southgate. We were never hiring a manager that last managed in club football over 15 years ago.
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Laurie Whitwell did say on Stretford Paddock that Southgate was discussed but going by his other reports and also Ornstein's, he wasn't one of the serious candidates like Tuchel or De Zerbi. Ornstein poured cold water on the Southgate links throughout most of the process.
Click to expand...

From the beginning it was shite and unreliable journalists linking us to Southgate on the lazy narrative of Ashworth’s previous work with him in the England set up. There was nothing credible yet as usual, blown out of proportion everywhere.
 
Being facetious but £1b for 20 years of being called "Meta Old Trafford" would be silly to turn down so it's only right that the club are looking into it.
 
macheda14 said:
With this it doesn’t actually matter. The new or refurbished stadiums would just be called Old Trafford by anyone who cares to talk about it.
Click to expand...
Not a new stadium. I don't refer to the Emirates as Highbury. I've no idea what Spurs' is called, but it isn't White Hart Lane.
 
antohan said:
Ok, I'll skip this season then.

Can someone please give them a season review compilation and be done with the assessments?
Click to expand...

It's also about sending a statement. Clubs are used to seeing us overpay, hence they quote extremely high fees for their players expecting us to agree. They will need to see that we are not that club anymore, that we won't budge and won't pay over the odds, and this is not done overnight. If it means less business this year, or even the next 2-3 years, so the other clubs can see we are not that club anymore, then be it.

I think INEOS are going to be incredibly patient and some people may not be particularly acceptant of that. It could take several years before we are where they want us to be. Just look at Nice and how long it's taking there.
 
Sold Trafford. It was inevitable, but the price has to be right. What isn’t for sale these days anyway, I’m surprised the shirts aren’t completely plastered with ads like in South America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.