Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Owners have rarely affected the 'history' of the club. In all my memory of supporting united it's always been the managers, players, events etc.
Owners have always been universally hated. Having a Qataris owner would not be any different! If I was a vegan would I be outraged that a butcher owned united? Probably.
So that's why it doesn't bother me. I want payback for the lost years because of the LBO enabled ownership under the glazers!. Why can't we have our own Christmas/lottery win for a change?
He might mean that they became more sponsorship focused and social media focused than football focused. That however is modern football.
No @HarryP is a plant.
@redcucumber is a plant.
Rude.
Im pro-INEOS, of the options we have now, never pro-Glazer.
The game has changed. They are one and the same now.
Ha! This is PlantCafe now, and I am ruler of the world!!!
Are they heck as like. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!
Ha! This is PlantCafe now, and I am ruler of the world!!!
Ratcliffe can feck off.
Glazers can feck off.
Anything other than a proper all out sale and fans should tear OT apart.
Remember that if Glazers don’t sell to Qatar, they’ll probably just go and buy Liverpool. You’ll then have City, Newcastle and Liverpool with proper backing and Utd stuck with these repulsive leeches.
Fans need to make themselves clear, more than ever.
Glazers can feck off.
Anything other than a proper all out sale and fans should tear OT apart.
Remember that if Glazers don’t sell to Qatar, they’ll probably just go and buy Liverpool. You’ll then have City, Newcastle and Liverpool with proper backing and Utd stuck with these repulsive leeches.
Fans need to make themselves clear, more than ever.
Qatar could yet offer Glazers staying in a similar non controlling capacity for all we know. They'd still hold all the cards if they went that way and the Glazers wouldn't get a say on dividends etc.
How would you feel then?
Liverpool fans are more likely to burn the entirety of Merseyside and parts of North Wales to the ground than accept ownership from a highly conservative, absolute monarchy. It's the two things they hate above all else (besides work of course
).And what part of the past 18 years has convinced you that the Glazers will suddenly start giving a single feck what the fans think or do?
I don’t believe Qatar want that. They want to own Utd properly and compete properly with City imo.
The Ratcliffe ownership will be another nightmare I reckon.
Utd just need the Glazers PROPERLY gone - and to heal as a club from the disgraceful treatment they’ve subjected Utd to.
We know exactly how they'd feel.
"Oh great Jassy Q to the R with the greatest bid ever made we bow to you're greatness"
That’s a scary thought, I agree. We really need the Glazers to feck off.
So how in your view will Qatar force the 2 Glazers not wanting to sell, to actually sell?
But having Glazers as 20% minority shareholders wouldn't stop them doing what they want with the club and all that you said above about competing with City.
It would just allow them to get the club for less money than a full takeover. Glazers wouldn't be able to veto them on anything.
The thing is...Ratcliffe (Just realized his name even has "Rat" in it) already revealed that he'd be open to side with the Glazers while the Qataris always stated that they wanted to buy 100%. So you've just put out a hypothetical question that doesn't even make sense, as it contradicts to things we've already known.
Hi there...I am a self-declared 'eejit'. Close cousins to the numpties.
Of course it's hypothetical but it could still be an option for the reasons stated above. Glazers owning 20% of the club wouldn't stop Qatar doing what they wanted.
All I'm saying is if in the next few days we hear Qatar are acting in a similar way then I hope you bring the same noise down on them.
And also...let's not forget this is all the say of Mike Keegan. We don't know how many different bids Sir Jim has given. He may well prefer to get 100% of the club for what we know
If the bid is high enough then presumably the 2 holding out would be costing the other siblings who want to sell a large amount of money. In that case I would expect the other Glazer siblings to apply huge pressure up to and including the threat of litigation against the other 2.
Don't think this will happen. Nevertheless, I think Liverpool fans are as capable of abject hypocrisy as any other. They went after Hicks and Gillet because they were Glazer like 'Yank' 'extractive parasites' but they'll happy to accept other 'for profit' US owners like John Henry's hedge-backed group so long as they're delivering. Liverpool fans will find some story to tell themselves so long as that hypothetical 'conservative monarch' makes a few rhetorical gestures and promises a bit of local infrastructural investment ( Liverpool's OK but like most cities it could always use more, particularly something with an uplift/philanthropic angle) and, most importantly, continued spending.Liverpool fans are more likely to burn the entirety of Merseyside and parts of North Wales to the ground than accept ownership from a highly conservative, absolute monarchy. It's the two things they hate above all else (besides work of course
And what part of the past 18 years has convinced you that the Glazers will suddenly start giving a single feck what the fans think or do?
To give them some equivocal credit though, Scouse fans are more capable in concert of scaring owners; it would be an interesting 'alt-history' thought experiment to game out how things would have gone for Glazer rule if they'd bought Liverpool instead. I suspect you'd have more arrests, for one thing, and not just in the UK, but that the property damage and, if it carried on long enough, threats to the person and so forth might have penetrated even the 'rhino hide' of the Glazer core group if sustained enough...
Yeah, they could - but they apparently aren't interested in that.
The way I see it, if Qatar are fine with Joel and Avram remaining on board (in some capacity), it should be smooth enough: they can easily outbid Jim (or whoever) for the shares of the other siblings.
But, again, Qatar don't want anything but complete control (apparently).
They begged Dubai to takeover ffs.Liverpool fans are more likely to burn the entirety of Merseyside and parts of North Wales to the ground than accept ownership from a highly conservative, absolute monarchy. It's the two things they hate above all else (besides work of course
And what part of the past 18 years has convinced you that the Glazers will suddenly start giving a single feck what the fans think or do?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2008/jan/25/liverpool.premierleague
Liverpool fans are more likely to burn the entirety of Merseyside and parts of North Wales to the ground than accept ownership from a highly conservative, absolute monarchy. It's the two things they hate above all else (besides work of course
And what part of the past 18 years has convinced you that the Glazers will suddenly start giving a single feck what the fans think or do?
That's definitely not true. In any case this is another example of people making all kinds of analogies and justifications to suit their purposes.
Last edited:
In my opinion United are a club that has been crying out for a sugar daddy owner for over 80 years. Once one is installed then watch us return to the consistent years of domination (and beyond) that we enjoyed under Fergie.
Couldn't have put that reply any better meself. Great post.
Fair enough.
Just reading that article though and Jesus. My opposition to such people owning this great club has increased 100 fold.
And to think, Dubai is often cited as the best of them. Even the author, who claims to be a fan of Dubai can't even paint them in anything close to a positive light.
Qatars worse.
I disagree, United doesn’t and never has needed a sugar daddy owner. That’s the distinction. With both Busby and Ferguson our greatness was the result of a legendary manager building brilliant team after brilliant team to dominate our opponents on a level playing field.
ETH could be the next legendary manager but it won’t be quite the same if our future dominance is as a result of simply out-muscling our opponents financially.
Money.
Which is what will happen. The rest is irrelevant.
You mean the consistent years of domination that we enjoyed without a sugar daddy owner?
(Those years of domination we enjoyed because we had brilliant management and a huge fan base.)
(And a bit of good timing/fortune/luck. Never known anyone positively unlucky to enjoy much success.)
This, particularly that last paragraph is spot on.
Anyways it’s all going to come down to money though as that’s the only thing the Glazers care about.
They'd have complete control if they allowed Glazers to keep 20% though. That's the point. Whoever gets over 50% doesn't have to answer to anyone.
Sheikh Mansoor has sold about 30% of Man City. Doesn't change anything for them.
Ratcliffe
Best part of a billion each for the two Glazers or the promise of future dividends in a secondary role at the club, I do not see how
anyone with an ounce of business acumen can favour the latter over the former.
anyone with an ounce of business acumen can favour the latter over the former.
- Status