Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
croadyman said:
Because don't want them to go and buy either Spurs or god forbid them scousers which was utterly sickening to say the least
Click to expand...

Liverpool fans will never in a million years accept it. Their club means more to them than you think.

If they buy another PL club how big of a Utd fan really is Sheikh Jassim? Or will they push someone else to be the frontman for that bid?

Don't want Qatar anywhere near this club. They are awful and they can't even be open about their bid. We all know it's not a private one.
 
Plant0x84 said:
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!! :mad: :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...
Forgot Glazers.

Also problem with INEOS is none of us can decide whether it should be all caps or not.
 
MoskvaRed said:
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.
Click to expand...

He's a shit of the first water.

I have zero sympathy for him and I consider his status as a "United fan" hollow as feck.
 
Wumminator said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's sort of like a strange form of sportswashing before they've even bought the club.
 
jm99 said:
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
Click to expand...

They must have their reasons.

And let's not ignore the point that so far Qatar haven't even made the best offer. If they had the Glazers would take it. Their loyalty is to money not the club.
 
So the last round wasn't actually the final round.

The Glazers are well and truly fecking us, this playing out of the takeover is going to have a direct impact on our summer transfer spending.
 
The Qataris have dodged a bullet if rumours are to be believed. Silly price to pay for a club in need of a complete overhaul. Good luck, Jim on your investment. Hope it goes well for both yourself and the club.

Not time to judge any new owner.
 
And Al Thani has won it. 89th minute screamer into the top left corner incoming.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
They must have their reasons.

And let's not ignore the point that so far Qatar haven't even made the best offer. If they had the Glazers would take it. Their loyalty is to money not the club.
Click to expand...

Even ignoring the Qatari offer, I can't understand why they wouldn't just sell their shares at the same premium as their siblings, financially it makes no sense not to, and it's obviously not coming from ove for the club
 
I really don't get why people are saying SJR would be tainted by keeping the Glazers on as minority shareholders for a few years.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

He supported a policy that was on the premise that EU citizens are parasites to the UK system and that they should leave. And the question that I'm asking you is how those people should feel about something that actually affected them.
Keep in mind that you agreed on the fact that the LGBT community isn't and wouldn't be excluded in Manchester. Also Ratcliffe has no issue making money in Qatar, so I'm not even sure about how we can make a a point about Qatar vs Ratcliffe when both INEOS and Qatar are business partners where the LGBT community is targetted.
 
Overall, the OGC Nice faithful expressed satisfaction with how the club has developed since the British billionaire arrived in 2019.
supporters stress the club’s progress and its structural development over the last four years. “Little by little, it’s building slowly. We expect a little more, but well, it’s not bad. I think there’s still a lot of satisfaction.”
Click to expand...
So not the abject disaster it’s portrayed as. Good to hear, thanks @JagUTD for sharing that article.
 
I feel sick. Even when negotiating their exit from the club, the Glazers have ensured our suffering continues for decades more.

These people are f****g lizards, they will destroy/hurt anyone or anything in their way to gather a few more coins.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I really don't get why people are saying SJR would be tainted by keeping the Glazers on as minority shareholders for a few years.
Click to expand...

Because those who have spent the last few months twerking for Qatar are upset and they're lashing out like children. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
JagUTD said:
In my defence I just googled Nice fans views on Ratcliffe and took the first result.
Click to expand...

That article is nonsense. They will burn the stadium if he isn't careful and I'm not joking. Nice fans are probably the biggest group of maniacs in France.
 
jm99 said:
Even ignoring the Qatari offer, I can't understand why they wouldn't just sell their shares at the same premium as their siblings, financially it makes no sense not to, and it's obviously not coming from ove for the club
Click to expand...

Who knows. But if they are 20% minority shareholders for one or two more years it won't mean anything. We will never hear from them again. They rarely come to Manchester as it is and I doubt they will ever come back tbh.

I'm just glad they won't have any control.
 
JPRouve said:
That article is nonsense. They will burn the stadium if he isn't careful and I'm not joking. Nice fans are probably the biggest group of maniacs in France.
Click to expand...

French people riot in the streets when petrol goes up a few cents. They are bleeding mental.
 
Plant0x84 said:
So not the abject disaster it’s portrayed as. Good to hear, thanks @JagUTD for sharing that article.
Click to expand...

I'm sure therea a range of opinions from Nice fans but the article suggests in general they are fairly happy and understand where they come from.

Attacking his record at Nice is just another of the lazy arguments put forward without context. A general rule in football is that clubs tend to do as well as their wage bill suggests and that's how Nice have performed under Ineos.
 
Is this Utd’s Brexit? Will the two sides ever be able to come back together which ever side wins or are the divisions too deep?
 
Plant0x84 said:
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!! :mad: :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...

Duly noted. For posters from the NW like myself, it’s probably a tendency to assume his name is the same as that small town between Bolton and Bury. Anyway, I’ll use “SJR“ from now on (or “offshore Brexiteer cnut” as the mood takes me)
 
JPRouve said:
He supported a policy that was on the premise that EU citizens are parasites to the UK system and that they should leave. And the question that I'm asking you is how those people should feel about something that actually affected them.
Keep in mind that you agreed on the fact that the LGBT community isn't and wouldn't be excluded in Manchester. Also Ratcliffe has no issue making money in Qatar, so I'm not even sure about how we can make a a point about Qatar vs Ratcliffe when both INEOS and Qatar are business partners where the LGBT community is targetted.
Click to expand...
Ok, if I'm to take the exact logic you've applied as sound I might argue that EU citizens won't be banned from Old Trafford and would therefore have no reason to feel excluded either.

However, I shall not rely on that line of argument because I don't believe it's sound. Once again, regardless of the beliefs of UKIP or any other Brexit supporter, it remains the case that Brexit itself did not prohibit EU citizens from existing in the UK. Neither, to my knowledge, has Jim Ratcliffe ever argued that EU citizens should not be allowed to exist in the UK. Therefore, his support of Brexit is not analogous to Qatar's prohibition on homosexuality.

Your final argument on him doing business in Qatar is by far your most sound, since it demonstrates that Ratcliffe at the very least doesn't feel strongly enough about Qatar's prohibition on homosexuality that it should prevent him from doing business with them. It would still argue, however, that this is several degrees less heinous than outright advocacy for/implementation of laws which prohibit the free expression of members of the LGBT community, and again the concerns expressed by Rainbow Devils suggest that there are plenty of LGBT people who support United who feel the same way as I do.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
More that I thought the Glazers would be 100% gone

United won’t become title challengers while they remain penny pinching
Click to expand...

Yeah the penny pinching has done so much damage in the last 18 years,sadly seems like it will continue under Ratcliffe
 
JPRouve said:
That article is nonsense. They will burn the stadium if he isn't careful and I'm not joking. Nice fans are probably the biggest group of maniacs in France.
Click to expand...

Of that I have no doubt. Watched a mini documentary about French football a while back and Nice, Marseille and St Etienne fans were painted as nutters :lol:

Like I said, I did the minimal bit of effort and googled something, posting the first result. I've since had a quick look at the other results and in general it's seems most are fairly happy, if not enthralled by his ownership so far. A couple of Nice fans posting on Reddit recently also being mostly positive about his ownership so far.

I've no doubt some will be unhappy though.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Who knows. But if they are 20% minority shareholders for one or two more years it won't mean anything. We will never hear from them again. They rarely come to Manchester as it is and I doubt they will ever come back tbh.

I'm just glad they won't have any control.
Click to expand...
Why would Jim buy them out when he doesn’t need to?
 
LawCharltonBest said:
More that I thought the Glazers would be 100% gone

United won’t become title challengers while they remain penny pinching
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. They will own 20% of the shares but won't be able to take any dividends or anything like that. So the only money they can make really is by cashing in their shares which means they will be gone.

How is that penny pinching? People are commenting on this situation and don't even have the basic grasp of the takeover.

If they were staying with voting power and decision making ability it would be a totally different matter. But why is Sir Jim going to give them 2.5bn and allow them to have any say? He isn't is he?
 
And his name is Sir Jim "ender of Qataris" Ratcliffe.

Please show some respect.
 
jm99 said:
Even ignoring the Qatari offer, I can't understand why they wouldn't just sell their shares at the same premium as their siblings, financially it makes no sense not to, and it's obviously not coming from ove for the club
Click to expand...
Because, according to reports, Joel and Avram will get more for their shares from Ineos in 2-3 years time.

Ineos can't offer Joel and Avram a higher price per share than their siblings now, because the sale has to be the same for all of them. But in a separate sale in a couple of years, they can pay them more, which is closer to what Joel and Avram are looking for. If all 6 stay, the club is in financial trouble and they won't be able to take out dividends. So the siblings are willing to cash out now, which they've wanted to do for a while apparently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.