Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly I will protest more against SJR if the takeover goes through. fecked up 2 clubs in France and now enroute doing the same in England by keeping these parasites on board.
 
Does that article by any chance say that under this proposal he would have a controlling stake?

Cause, you see, as has been explained once or twice before I think, if he has a controlling stake it does not matter who owns the other shares. This is the same situation whether there are no Glazers owning shares, 2 Glazers owning shares, 6 Glazers owning shares or several thousand Glazers owning shares. If INEOS have a controlling stake, they control the club.
 
Does that article by any chance say that under this proposal he would have a controlling stake?

Cause, you see, as has been explained once or twice before I think, if he has a controlling stake it does not matter who owns the other shares. This is the same situation whether there are no Glazers owning shares, 2 Glazers owning shares, 6 Glazers owning shares or several thousand Glazers owning shares. If INEOS have a controlling stake, they control the club.

To be fair, I'd like them to sell up and feck off back somewhere else.
 




Nauseating stuff really


It's not really that different than what's been suggested for awhile now.

Sir Jim is going to buy enough shares to control the club, I guess there will be some sort of motion the six siblings have to vote through to make this happen. Then, later on, he will buy them out more fully.

From his perspective it makes sense. I just hope that he runs club well if this is where things are going. We have had a decade of absentee landlords letting the place go to s-t. Sir Jim can't be worse than that...

... right?
 
To be fair, I'd like them to sell up and feck off back somewhere else.
But you understand that is just you being emotional right? You get that it's actually irrelevant? Cause it's fine to feel that way, in fact it's absolutely understandable, but there's no actual reason to care.
 
oFbrBqNN
 
Does that article by any chance say that under this proposal he would have a controlling stake?

Cause, you see, as has been explained once or twice before I think, if he has a controlling stake it does not matter who owns the other shares. This is the same situation whether there are no Glazers owning shares, 2 Glazers owning shares, 6 Glazers owning shares or several thousand Glazers owning shares. If INEOS have a controlling stake, they control the club.
Some people have developed a parasocial relationship with the Glazers to the point where if all Avram got was a 10% discount on Old Trafford sandwiches they would be annoyed.
 
But you understand that is just you being emotional right? You get that it's actually irrelevant? Cause it's fine to feel that way, in fact it's absolutely understandable, but there's no actual reason to care.


It's completely emotional.
 
That would be completely irrelevant in terms of control, so I wouldn't use that to judge the bid. No comment on the other qualities of the bid, but if it leaves 49% (or any other minority stake) in Glazer control what does it matter if it's between 6 or 2?
 
Who cares that the 6 Glazers retain shares as long as Ratcliffe takes control (before eventually buying them out fully)?

So many of you on here are ridiculously hysterical.
 
Does that article by any chance say that under this proposal he would have a controlling stake?

Cause, you see, as has been explained once or twice before I think, if he has a controlling stake it does not matter who owns the other shares. This is the same situation whether there are no Glazers owning shares, 2 Glazers owning shares, 6 Glazers owning shares or several thousand Glazers owning shares. If INEOS have a controlling stake, they control the club.
Yeah the glazers are staying because they just want the prestige. Admit it. Your man Jim is a sellout. I said it from the beginning he had no integrity.
 
Yeah, good look getting these greedy cnuts to agree who gets what and who dilutes down in the next year. Never happen.
 
Source of the new update..




Until now, I’ve been pretty ambivalent to this whole process. As long as the Glazers were pretty much gone, it would be a good thing, whoever ultimately owned us but if this is true and they ALL retain a share in our club then Ratcliffe can fecking do one.
 
Who cares that the 6 Glazers retain shares as long as Ratcliffe takes control (before eventually buying them out fully)?

So many of you on here are ridiculously hysterical.
So many are being incredibly naive to Jim Ratcliffe. The man’s history of betrayal and going back on his word in business. The gross failure of his clubs in France and Switzerland. Now him going from full buy to joining the glazer gang.
 
Last edited:
It's not really that different than what's been suggested for awhile now.

Sir Jim is going to buy enough shares to control the club, I guess there will be some sort of motion the six siblings have to vote through to make this happen. Then, later on, he will buy them out more fully.

From his perspective it makes sense. I just hope that he runs club well if this is where things are going. We have had a decade of absentee landlords letting the place go to s-t. Sir Jim can't be worse than that...

... right?
Wrong.

This is an obvious ploy to bait the Qataris into make a bigger offer. Can't believe they got the financial times in on this.
 
Which ever side leaked this today, of all days, is incredibly stupid unless it was from Jassim’s side to garner more support
 
Honestly I will protest more against SJR if the takeover goes through. fecked up 2 clubs in France and now enroute doing the same in England by keeping these parasites on board.

We annexed Switzerland? :devil:
 
INEOS always brief on Friday. Qatar at the start of the week.

If that’s the case, what on earth did they expect the reaction to be? Leaving 2 of them on board was bad enough but all of them? feck me, like others have said he’s just another Glazer
 
INEOS always brief on Friday. Qatar at the start of the week.
[/QUOTE]
Why would the silly cnuts brief this though?
 
I wouldn't argue with the Brexit Brigade. Anything related to the Qatar bid that lends it credibility is discarded (e.g. see this conversion you're having) and anything that would damage Jimmy Brexit's chances in the eyes of the fans (the way his Ineos team has failed at Nice and Lausanne) is apparently irrelevant.

You keep trying to make this a thing, and it's cute, but I'd bet my house that you'll find a lot more Brexit supporters in your Qatar crowd.

The ones talking about "woke" and snowflakes? Qatar. The ones saying that maybe democracy isn't that big of a deal after all? Qatar. DeSantis fans? Qatar. Crying about Disney and Netflix because black people and gay people? Qatar. Of the two posters in this thread that I know voted for Brexit, one prefers Qatar and the other seems skeptical of both bidders.
 
I think a great number of you are quite deliberately refusing to understand.

They're just upset it seems to be moving closer and closer to SJR and they won't get to be a state plaything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.