So Glazers just want to stay in the club because they are such huge fans? It is possible that they will lose a large part of the power. But they will never stay at the club if it was not a huge advantage for themselves. They have hurt United so much for so long and they have shown several times that they don't care 100% about the club. They are parasites and if they are willing to stay at the club it is only because they are not done sucking money out of it.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I'm not comparing them. I'm naming something that has actually targetted people in the UK and people that still live in the UK. Do you think that these people should feel excluded if a brexiteer purchase United?
Have the Glazzers put in a bid for the club?!
Hope Qatar slap their dick on the table or we are Brexit toast
I think it underlines just how incompetent they are given their obvious predilection for filthy lucre.Well that's the Glazers all over, principled honest people who aren't swayed by money
Where are you getting this from except from 13 year olds on twitter with Qatar flags in their bio?
Honestly never seen so many hissy fits in all my life.
Jim Ratcliffe is worth 15bn. He's richer than all the Glazers combined. Not only that but he has a mega wealthy company behind him too of which he is majority owner. They had revenues of 69bn last year.
If Qatar can't even outbid Sir Jim then why are so many people hoping so much from them?
Obviously. The entire point of holding onto shares is to get more money further down the line. Absolutely nobody thinks otherwise.
Cheers, breakfast ruined.
Yup, it’s epic.
Absolutely not. And I'm very much a pragmatist. I firmly believe that if we're to stand half a chance of saving this fecked-up planet, we need dialogue and compromises (much) more than bombastic stands.
It's a very precarious balance, though. I personally don't think freely letting undemocratic regimes throw money around to host global sporting events or own football clubs is the sort of pragmatism we should embrace.
ETA And I don't think letting them do that will tangibly benefit fringe groups in said countries. There's zero evidence that the World Cup did anything to improve the situation for LGBT+ people in Qatar.
Last edited:
They will be wanting to cash their shares in and make more money on their 20%. That's all. So rather than getting it right now they get it further down the line.
It's absolutely no different as long as they have no control on the club and decisions.
The number Qatar offer would have to reflect what the Glazers would make if they take the Ratcliffe share offer and stay for some time. I’m not even sure how you calculate that.
I'm pretty sure if Qatar throw in a £6bn bid tonight, the Glazers won't care about deadlines or whatever, if it makes them more money. Granted I'm not entirely expecting this as you'd assume if they were going to bid that high they'd have already done it. Though I guess it's possible they wanted to see ratcliffe's max bid before they went all in
The Glazers’ greed meant this was all about who offers more money in regards to valuation from day 1. Ratcliff is offering more for the siblings than Jassim. Nothing more and nothing less.
If they came up with a big bid for the 69% owned by the Glazers then they will win but it seems they have misread the rules of the game by a wide margin. At this stage it was never about trying to convince the fans with pledges of further investment, debt repayment and nostalgic appointments it was about satisfying the Glazers with a solid financial proposal for their shares. All the blabber about wanting 100% was not necessary, it was about getting effective control by first agreeing with the Glazers.
Look, the simplest way I can put it is that many who are in favour of Sheikh Jassim's bid are making the case that those of us who would prefer Ratcliffe are happy to give up extra funds and probably more success in the future to "take the moral high ground". And you know what? You guys are absolutely right. Whilst I want us to be successful, I'd sooner pass up on extra trophies if attaining them means becoming a sportswashing venture for a regime that openly and actively institutes policies that discriminate against migrants, members of the LGBT community etc.
However, if you guys want to make that argument, you HAVE to accept that the converse is true. That is, you have to accept that, consciously or not, what you are saying is that those extra trophies and that extra success matter more to you than the moral debate, than the concerns that LGBT supporter groups have expressed regarding a Qatari takeover. It's the only logical follow-on from the argument that you're making.
However, if you guys want to make that argument, you HAVE to accept that the converse is true. That is, you have to accept that, consciously or not, what you are saying is that those extra trophies and that extra success matter more to you than the moral debate, than the concerns that LGBT supporter groups have expressed regarding a Qatari takeover. It's the only logical follow-on from the argument that you're making.
That’s equivalent to blasphemy in this thread.
(I mentioned it about a month ago too
Maybe damage to his personal reputation but the write down of the Credit Suisse investment is still relatively small beer in the context of QIA‘s balance sheet. The Saudis had a 10% stake (double the Qatari stake) and I doubt they are preparing to sell Newcastle.
I don't understand this though, right now Ratcliffe is buying the shares at an enormous premium assuming he wins. Holding onto 20% is likely around 500m each. This kind of money can earn fairly good returns annually in other investments. Surely there's no way the Glazers can expect in 3 years time the club to be worth so much more that it overtakes the premium that was paid on the shares when they were needed for control, plus the opportunity cost of having invested that money elsewhere for 3 years
Not a fan of White pudding?
If you talk to any Nice fan you'll find out Radcliff is pretty much their Glazers
Well they clearly think under INEOS we can grow and then so can their profits.
I don't think people on their forum truly realise just how rich Sir Jim and INEOS really are. You'd think we were being bought by a homeless person the way some are going on.
He's richer than all the Glazers put together and we spend vast amounts of money on players right now so I'm sure we will be just fine.
If City can still have their own official LGBTQ+ supporters club 15 years after the takeover, I don't see how nor why United under Qatari ownership would exclude Rainbow Devils. The same fears probably existed prior and even after the takeover at City, but those were overblown at the end of the day. Just like someone mentioned earlier: this is the United Kingdom and there is no way that any foreign owner can disregard the laws of the land.
If you talk to pretty much any fan, they will tell you their owner is their Glazers.
Odious as Qatar’s attitudes to homosexuality are, Radcliffe is still a cnut for supporting Brexit from his offshore base. I find it very hard to forgive rich, aloof people like him who supported inflicting such a self-destructive policy on my country.
Perhaps comparing them is the wrong word, but you are equivocating them whether you intend to or not.
It is the prerogative of EU citizens, and anybody else, to feel however they like about the prospect of Ratcliffe taking over at United. However, my point is that Ratcliffe has to my knowledge never advocated for the implementation of policies that would exclude EU citizens from freely existing within the UK, much as I disagree with his stance on Brexit. It's therefore not comparable to an LGBT person's opinion of representatives of the Qatari state owning the club, since the Qatari state actively enforces policies that exclude members of the LGBT community from freely existing within Qatar.
Again, I maintain the position that your equivocation of the two is nonsensical.
But it's a nonsense argument. You don't know what Sir Jim has bought Nice for.
City's owner has bought 7 other clubs in the world. They don't get the investment that Man City get. So he must be a bad owner then too?
Utd and Nice are a different animal all together. It's just irrelevant.
Appreciate it’s a bit of a dump but that’s pretty harsh
Yeah -I would much rather support a midtable club I am proud of and love rather than have a team that win things in a hollow manner backed by an evil regime.
Nobody is suggesting that Sheikh Jassim is going to ban LGBT supporters from entering Old Trafford. It's the fact that they'd turn the club into a sportswashing vehicle for their regime, a regime which actively excludes LGBT people from freely existing within their country, that bothers people.
He is. I'm not defending Ratcliffe. I am taking issue with what I see as an attempt to distract from LGBTQ+ persecution.
Because don't want them to go and buy either Spurs or god forbid them scousers which was utterly sickening to say the least
The what Tribune?
I get that, but even if we were winning the league and champions league every year, it won't double the share price of the club which currently has us around 3bn. And 3 years is a very quick turnaround if the stories are to be believed that that's when Jim will buy the remaining Glazer shares, we might not even be in the champions league next year, this isn't a criticism of Jim, if the qataris took over I'd still expect two years before a genuine title challenge, the idea that he could double the clubs worth in 3 years, which is what would be necessary to make it worth holding onto the shares rather than selling at a premium is absolutely ludicrous even if he was the greatest owner in the history of the world
Yeah. I agree Ratcliffe's a cnut for backing Brexit, but to say it's in any sense analogous to outlawing public expression of homosexuality is absolutely risible.
Ladies and Gents, for the love of all that is holy the man’s name is Ratcliffe not Radcliffe or Radcliff. That’s where all the super original and highly amusing rodent based nicknames come from.
After 18 years of Glaziers, Glazzers and Galzers can we at least try to get this one right from the beginning? Either that or just say INEOS- it’s basically the same thing!!
After 18 years of Glaziers, Glazzers and Galzers can we at least try to get this one right from the beginning? Either that or just say INEOS- it’s basically the same thing!!
Still very little actual news, I'm sure like most of you I'd like to see an end to this.
From what I can see after a big quiet period, some bit part papers started running Jim may have the upper hand, but The Times running it today makes me think there's truth in it.
I very much hope that's the case, I was previously vocal of my preference for his bid, and I'm glad hearing it might be over soon, but as a United fan, again as many of us are, I'm very keen to see it confirmed before celebrating. I'm far too used to our transfer dealings to think anything is in the bag.
From what I can see after a big quiet period, some bit part papers started running Jim may have the upper hand, but The Times running it today makes me think there's truth in it.
I very much hope that's the case, I was previously vocal of my preference for his bid, and I'm glad hearing it might be over soon, but as a United fan, again as many of us are, I'm very keen to see it confirmed before celebrating. I'm far too used to our transfer dealings to think anything is in the bag.
It’s genuinely disgusting is what it is. I can’t stand what Brexit represents but to compare it to literally outlawing homosexuals? feck me.
- Status