Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
jm99 said:
That's my point though, calling out redcafe posters for wanting Qatar for sporting reasons, but being OK with Jim doing billions of dollars pf business with Saudi Arabia is fairly hypocritical. I don't mind people having a preference on moral grounds, but there seems to be a sentiment among the anti Qatar posters that anyone who's ok with them owning us endorses their regime, but Jim doing billions of dollars of business with Saudi Arabia isn't him endorsing their regime
Click to expand...
Again, this is your own invention.
 
webbthepostie said:
Fair enough, it was a bit hyperbolic, I think this post is relevant to this discussion:
Click to expand...
I never assumed it is free money. I always thought that even if it is a State bid, they will try to make this a successful investment through some means. They have far more powerful and successful people working for them and I am absolutely certain they would have explored all the situations on how to make this investment worth their time.

I doubt anyone is blind enough to believe it is for philanthropy (although some pro-Ineos supporters were claiming this is a legacy project for JR which is a more insane stance to take), but I feel that Qatar will provide more resources to bring us back to the top than Ineos. Could well be a private bid and we could be screwed but I feel it is a State bid and it's impossible to compete with the resources of a State bid no matter how powerful or rich you are (unless a company like Apple gets into the fray which is a different beast altogether).
 
We need to be kinder to the Protaris, they’ve been buried under a dump-truck of L’s over the past few days and will need some time to recover. Hopefully the radiant light of Sir Jim’s benevolent reign will serve as a balm to their scalded behinds.
 
MrPaxtons said:
Yeah looks like they’ve leaked about Ineos so Qatar bids again, this is all for more money and this isn’t over yet.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of that private Qatar flight from Tampa to Manchester

Ok it might be nothing to do with any of this, but apparently that flight never made a journey like that before and it seems a very coincidental time for it to have happened now just before an apparently crucial final week
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Because I don't want to be a state owned vanity project to mask their extreme homophobia, modern day slavery and all the other negative stuff.

Basically I have some moral fibre.

Half the people on this forum begging for Qatar would probably be Chelsea or City fans now if they were born around 2008 or after. That's the thing. They just want what they perceive as 'guaranteed success'.

Liverpool fans wouldn't accept Qataris. They know their club means more than that. Wish our fanbase did but sadly they have been brainwashed and sportswashed.
Click to expand...

Here's one quote, for the person saying that none of the anti Qatar lot are equating wanting them with some moral failings and that I'm just imagining that.

Here a poster calls anyone wanting Qatar brainwashed and sportswashed, says that he has moral fibre suggesting that anyone with a diffeent opinion doesn't have moral fibre and is OK with extreme homophones and modern day slavery
 
Castia said:
Oh I’m not pinning it all on him it’s just the usual shambles we get here at United

To be honest though Jim’s probably not in a rush I don’t see a busy summer under him regardless.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that’s just the way it read, and you have been an outspoken critic of Jim’s bid - but maybe I am a little too defensive :nervous:.

It’s already been reported:
1) he wants Immediate control of transfers but the Glazers are unlikely to allow it
2) we expect a big summer whether it’s Jassim or INEOS as they try to get the fans onside.

I’m hopeful we can build on this season and push a title challenge next season, even though the season after is probably more likely (assuming Erik stays in post)
 
An article by Paul Hirst, The Times about Ole Gunnar Solskjaer

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer urged the Glazer family to sell Manchester United and revealed that the club’s potential new owner, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, once tried to appoint him as Nice manager.

Speaking publicly for the first time since he was sacked by United 18 months ago, Solskjaer opened up on a number of topics, including: how he cried following his dismissal; how Sir Alex Ferguson apologised to him after questioning his decision to rest Ronaldo; and United’s dressing-room being occupied by a number of “snowflakes”.

In front of an audience of 420 people — some of whom had paid more than £400 for their ticket — Solskjaer spent an hour recalling his playing days and his three-year spell in charge of United.

Solskjaer will return to Old Trafford on Saturday to watch United for the first time since he was sacked as manager. The Norwegian, who played 366 times for United, admits the stadium has seen better days, and for that reason, he is hoping that the takeover goes through as quickly as possible.

“It [the takeover] needs to be done,” Solskjaer said. “Old Trafford is neglected. The training ground has been neglected. We need to catch up with the other teams.”

The Times reported on Friday that the billionaire businessman and United fan is in talks with the club and the New York bankers overseeing the sale after moving ahead of Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani and other rival bidders.

Ratcliffe, a United fan, also owns Nice and Solskjaer said that the businessman once tried to lure him to the French club.

“Nobody knows this but, there were some talks with Nice and Sir Jim Ratcliffe because they wanted me,” Solskjaer, who is still unsure whether the United takeover will be completed, said. “I’m not sure he [Ratcliffe] can get the whole lot. I think he wants only 51 per cent; it’s a difficult one.”

Solskjaer defended the Glazers during his time in charge, but now free of their shackles, he spoke more openly about their failures.

The Norwegian said that Richard Arnold, the chief executive, was doing a good job but was having trouble dealing with the owners.

“Everyone has their own way of working and I’m sure Richard is getting his ideas across,” Solskjaer said.

“It’s about getting the people above him to do what’s needed for the club. I’m sure Richard is the right man.”

One of the many errors of the Glazer era came in the summer of 2018 when Solskjaer, then in charge of Molde, offered United the chance to sign Erling Haaland, who had broken into the first team of the Norwegian club after turning 18.

Haaland, now 22, is regarded as the best young striker in the world and has scored 51 goals in 47 matches for Manchester City this season.

“I called United about six months before I took over and told them that I’d got this striker that we had but they didn’t listen,” Solskjaer said. “I asked for £4 million for Haaland but they didn’t sign him.”

United made it clear to Solskjaer after they sacked him that he would always be welcome back at the club as a fan, but the former striker has not been able to bring himself to return to the stadium until today, when he will watch the match against Wolverhampton Wanderers. His dismissal in November 2021, following an embarrassing 4-1 loss away to Watford, still pains Solskjaer.

“There are only two times when I have cried as a grown man,” Solskjaer told the audience.

“The first was after my testimonial because that was emotional, and a year and a half ago when I had to leave. Man United, it does something to you.”

Solskjaer described his successor, Erik ten Hag, as a “very clever” manager and the Norwegian tipped one of his former coaches, Michael Carrick, to succeed the Dutchman when his tenure comes to an end. Carrick, 41, has taken Middlesbrough into the Sky Bet Championship playoffs in his first year in management.

“I mean this with my whole heart: I’m sure he will be the manager of Manchester United one day,” Solskjaer said.

“Michael is class, from top to bottom. Integrity, loyalty, respect, knowledge; he’s got absolutely everything. I hope we do well with Erik, really hope so, and when he goes that Michael has had enough years for the club to say, ‘Come back, Michael, because we need you’.”

Solskjaer spoke with refreshing honesty about his time in charge and admitted that he still has the desire to manage another team despite his painful and trophyless experience at United. He would not rule out a return to Old Trafford in another role in the future either.

“I’ve got another job in me, if it’s the right chance and exciting enough,” Solskjaer said. “There are so many clubs, but I’m not going to work just for the sake of working. It has to be something special, a new culture, or a club that really excites me. Or maybe they will want me back at the club in some capacity, who knows?”

Solskjaer lapped up the applause from the crowd during his on-stage Q&A. “Keep going” he said into the microphone as they chanted his name at the start of the evening. He was on good form throughout, prompting a ripple of applause and laughter when speaking about his managerial style and that of his old boss and mentor Sir Alex Ferguson. Solskjaer also revealed that Ferguson apologised to him in October 2021 after the Scot was caught on camera questioning his decision to start Cristiano Ronaldo on the bench.

“That’s the one time Sir Alex has ever apologised to me,” Solskjaer said. “He was caught on a video saying, ‘You should always play your best players,’ after Ronaldo started on the bench for one game. He rang me and apologised because he knows how difficult it is.”

After watching a replay of his Champions League winning goal in the Nou Camp on the big screen, Solskjaer revealed he had never watched the full match back. He said the team spirit and competitiveness was the secret to the success of the Treble winning team of 1999.

“The lads in that dressing-room were fantastic. Winners. Hated losing. We had a few fights as you should do after bad games because you had to shake each other up,” he said.

“If you do that to the boys now you would get your mum or dad or agent on the phone . . . They are such snowflakes . . . not many of today’s lot would have survived in that dressing-room.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jippy said:
Yeah of course, I agree with all of that, but it unfortunately reflects the world we live in. I'm living in a developed country but it doesn't recognise gay marriage, so gay people's partners aren't given visas, access to social housing as a couple is unavailable etc...
Anyway I won't derail the thread, just saying you can think that way coming from a good place rather than a bad one.
Click to expand...
I do see your point, I’m just don’t think not being gay if you are is the answer.
It also shouldn’t affect whether you support this team or that, and whether you feel welcome in sport or not.
 
NK86 said:
I never assumed it is free money. I always thought that even if it is a State bid, they will try to make this a successful investment through some means. They have far more powerful and successful people working for them and I am absolutely certain they would have explored all the situations on how to make this investment worth their time.

I doubt anyone is blind enough to believe it is for philanthropy (although some pro-Ineos supporters were claiming this is a legacy project for JR which is a more insane stance to take), but I feel that Qatar will provide more resources to bring us back to the top than Ineos. Could well be a private bid and we could be screwed but I feel it is a State bid and it's impossible to compete with the resources of a State bid no matter how powerful or rich you are (unless a company like Apple gets into the fray which is a different beast altogether).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the actual material financial difference between Qatari and INEOS ownership would be as great as you are imagining.

First, because (assuming they don't cheat like City or suddenly become more transparent about their links to the Qatari state like PSG) this state-backed bid faces limitations and complications that other state backed bids didn't.

Second, because the FFP rules apply to us regardless of who the owner is. This summer for example the owners can have very little legitimate immediate impact on our spending power, regardless of who they are.

Third, United generate such an extreme level of wealth as is that in practical terms we're looking to bridge a relatively small gap between what we could spend on our own and what state-backed clubs can spend. And once that gap is bridged, theoretical access to excess funds beyond that become rather irrelevant.

And fourth because even with their theoretical access to extreme wealth, City's parent group still opted to take out one of the largest loans in football history in 2021, $650m via Barclays, HSBC and KKR Capital Markets, to finance their investments. In other words state ownership is zero guarantee that debt (something INEOS' bid has been criticised for involving) doesn't come into the picture, because states have reasons to opt for financing just as ludicrously wealthy companies like INEOS do.

The very fact that Qatar haven't blown the INEOS bid out of the water should tell us that there are real-word restrictions that put lie to the idea that state ownership suddenly sees us have access to unmatchable wealth.
 
Last edited:
jm99 said:
Tbh I wasn't really intending it to be nasty, I kinds felt he was the type of poster who took pride in his smugness:lol:

I mean I remember the time he made a thread after we beat west ham laughing at everyone who criticised solskjaer in the match day thread, then we won one more game until solskjaer got sacked out of the next 7 or 8 games

It's the same way I wouldn't mind someone calling me a stubborn prick or a cnut, I am :lol:
Click to expand...

TBF I’ll just go through your posts and expose you next time. You have made my list. And a Wumminator NEVER forgets.
 
Wumminator said:
TBF I’ll just go through your posts and expose you next time. You have made my list. And a Wumminator NEVER forgets.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe you already tried that in this thread and said I was clean :lol:

That's why I never criticised Newcastle or City's ownership over the last decade, just in case we were one day possibly maybe going yo think about a similar takeover and I had to be protected from the wumminators brutal justice
 
One thing that might be clickbait, but is being reported in some quarters is that Ratcliffe wants Potter to take over Nice for next season. If that doesn't make everyone suddenly pro Qatari, I don't know what will. :)
 
Mou Mou Land said:
One thing that might be clickbait, but is being reported in some quarters is that Ratcliffe wants Potter to take over Nice for next season. If that doesn't make everyone suddenly pro Qatari, I don't know what will. :)
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't Potter be a good fit for a club like Nice? Chelsea didn't work out for him but maybe it came too soon He'll be fine at a smaller club.
 
jm99 said:
Actually I believe you already tried that in this thread and said I was clean :lol:

That's why I never criticised Newcastle or City's ownership over the last decade, just in case we were one day possibly maybe going yo think about a similar takeover and I had to be protected from the wumminators brutal justice
Click to expand...

Curses. Foiled again.
 
jm99 said:
See the post I quoted, this isn't my invention
Click to expand...
This one?
whitbyviking said:
If you want to damn SJR/Ineos by association with Saudi on the grounds of Khashoggi then I suggest do some reading on Sheikh Khalid Al Thani and damn Sheikh Jassim by association too. For balance of course.
Click to expand...
It doen't have anything to do with this:
jm99 said:
there seems to be a sentiment among the anti Qatar posters that anyone who's ok with them owning us endorses their regime, but Jim doing billions of dollars of business with Saudi Arabia isn't him endorsing their regime
Click to expand...
He's just refuting your argument. You are inventing an opinion for anti Qatar posters and arguing against it, it's disengenuous. For clarity, the vast majority aren't particularly enamoured with Ratcliffe either but see a clear difference between a company and a nation state. I haven't seen anyone argue that we should ignore the environmental issues etc... should Ratcliffe take over. If you're going to suggest someone has an opinion and call them a prick, at least have the courtesy to quote said opinion.
 
Withnail said:
Why wouldn't Potter be a good fit for a club like Nice? Chelsea didn't work out for him but maybe it came too soon He'll be fine at a smaller club.
Click to expand...
It's the progression plan that makes me worry - Brailsford loves them.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Because I don't want to be a state owned vanity project to mask their extreme homophobia, modern day slavery and all the other negative stuff.

Basically I have some moral fibre.

Half the people on this forum begging for Qatar would probably be Chelsea or City fans now if they were born around 2008 or after. That's the thing. They just want what they perceive as 'guaranteed success'.

Liverpool fans wouldn't accept Qataris. They know their club means more than that. Wish our fanbase did but sadly they have been brainwashed and sportswashed.
Click to expand...
webbthepostie said:
This one?

It doen't have anything to do with this:

He's just refuting your argument. You are inventing an opinion for anti Qatar posters and arguing against it, it's disengenuous. For clarity, the vast majority aren't particularly enamoured with Ratcliffe either but see a clear difference between a company and a nation state. I haven't seen anyone argue that we should ignore the environmental issues etc... should Ratcliffe take over. If you're going to suggest someone has an opinion and call them a prick, at least have the courtesy to quote said opinion.
Click to expand...

No this one, where a pro Qatar poster equates wanting Qatar or being OK with Qatar with lacking moral fibre.

I'm Scottish, we call people prick as a friendly gesture :lol:
 
sullydnl said:
I'm not sure the actual material financial difference between Qatari and INEOS ownership would be as great as you are imagining.

First, because (assuming they don't cheat like City or suddenly become more transparent about their links to the Qatari state like PSG) this state-backed bid faces limitations and complications that other state backed bids didn't.

Second, because the FFP rules apply to us regardless of who the owner is. This summer for example the owners can have very little legitimate immediate impact on our spending power, regardless of who they are.

Third, United generate such an extreme level of wealth as is that in practical terms we're looking to bridge a relatively small gap between what we could spend on our own and what state-backed clubs can spend. And once that gap is bridged, theoretical access to excess funds beyond that become rather irrelevant.

And fourth because even with their theoretical access to extreme wealth, City's parent group still opted to take out one of the largest loans in football history in 2021, $650m via Barclays, HSBC and KKR Capital Markets, to finance their investments. In other words state ownership is zero guarantee that debt (something INEOS' bid has been cruticised for involving) doesn't come into the picture, because states have reasons to opt for financing just as ludicrously wealthy companies like INEOS do.

The very fact that Qatar haven't blown the INEOS bid out of the water should tell us that there are real-word restrictions that put lie to the idea that state ownership suddenly sees us have access to unmatchable wealth.
Click to expand...
I don't think we are looking to cook books or looking for the new owner to pump money out of their pocket on players. However, definitely they can invest in stadium and training facilities without us having to incur more debt. I think that's not part of FFP unless that rule has changed.

Again City owners may have taken on loans but that was not put on City's books. There's currently a lack of clarity on whether Ineos will clear our existing debt. They may but would be great if they clarified that. There's also lack of clarity on the new ownership structure and whether Glazers staying will have impact on investments in the club.
 
Lyng said:
Nice would probably be a good level for Ole to be honest
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. He relegated Cardiff and the squad was speaking English.
Unless he speaks French if be 99.9% sure how the experiment would end.
 
NK86 said:
I meant any organization/State who come in to bid billions on a football club definitely have more powerful and successful people employed than the average caf poster. That is what I meant.
Click to expand...

You underestimate OUR power :devil:
 
Berbaclass said:
Summer. Feck off

Click to expand...

I don't care which of the 2 win at this stage but this was the one thing I did not want to happen. All of this needed to be done well before the summer so we had time to get our signings in. Fecking joke
 
I don’t really understand all the ins and outs of buying a multi billion pound football team, but how can Qatar be this far into this process that has dragged on forever and not have their business being in order to make the purchase? Is this a big deal or something that can be organized quickly?

 
jm99 said:
No this one, where a pro Qatar poster equates wanting Qatar or being OK with Qatar with lacking moral fibre.

I'm Scottish, we call people prick as a friendly gesture :lol:
Click to expand...
Well to support the Qatar bid does
jm99 said:
No this one, where a pro Qatar poster equates wanting Qatar or being OK with Qatar with lacking moral fibre.

I'm Scottish, we call people prick as a friendly gesture :lol:
Click to expand...
Half of those people possibly do lack moral fibre to be fair. Doesn't mean to say it's you. Apologies, didn't know your nationality and I appreciate it's a bit racist to accuse a Scot of lacking manners:lol:
 
webbthepostie said:
Well to support the Qatar bid does

Half of those people possibly do lack moral fibre to be fair. Doesn't mean to say it's you. Apologies, didn't know your nationality and I appreciate it's a bit racist to accuse a Scot of lacking manners:lol:
Click to expand...

Then that's my point, if Jim is OK with doing billions of pounds of business with Saudi Arabia, isn't it also lacking moral fibre to want him. I mean if you look at how that sane poster described Jim it was as a local Manchester lad who loves the club, you'd be forgiven for thinking he was a lottery winner or something, rather than a man who does business with oppressive regimes
 
Eckers99 said:
They'd say, "Announce Mbappe!"
Click to expand...
NK86 said:
Isn't it companies like Ineos who give these State more validity and greater power and exposure by doing business with them? I don't think you can then turn around and say "well, they aren't doing it but just profiteering from it". It's like saying it is China's fault that they are allowing their workforce to be exploited when talking about the sweatshops and poor work conditions employed by giants like Apple, Nike etc in that country. As far as I am concerned, both are equally culpable as one allows it and the other exploits and prospers from it.
Click to expand...
We the UK do business with Qatar and everyone else like China. Easy to quote Apple, Nike 2 USA companies but just about everything we purchase is made in someone else sweatshop under dubious work conditions. To simply define it as the problem when its related to United is blinkered. We build next to nothing here as a minute excerpt of dragons dens thrive on "we can get it made cheaper in china, I have connections". Whilst we can sit with rose tinted glass and denounce this or that we are all passive in just about every other sector bar United in these conversations. Our whole Net Zero policy is founded on Chinese tech and Lithium mines having hell hole policies in countries like the Congo so we really can't be blinkered, Billionaires influence gov policy, Don't kid yourself on that an individual with that wealth hasn't dined in the corridors of power they have them on speed dial. I personally think its time to move on, both SJ and SJR have been deride enough on here for everyone to have made their points and opinions formed, over and over. Its just rinse and repeat now. Let see who wins the bid first as we are basically 2 ants arguing over which dog takes us to town today. Once the winning bidder has been declared I'm sure everyone with have the pencils sharpened and we can go for round 1552.
 
jm99 said:
Then that's my point, if Jim is OK with doing billions of pounds of business with Saudi Arabia, isn't it also lacking moral fibre to want him. I mean if you look at how that sane poster described Jim it was as a local Manchester lad who loves the club, you'd be forgiven for thinking he was a lottery winner or something, rather than a man who does business with oppressive regimes
Click to expand...
There is a clear difference between the two. I strongly agree with you that anyone painting Ratcliffe as a saint is being daft though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.