Bloody elon musk, he’s got lots to answer forThey got you as wellThere’s a parody acc of centre devils acc.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
The two that are reluctant to sell must think they know something about owning a sports business for profit, and in the UK too, so it has to be a possibility.
They wouldn't need to having so much money from the sale of United. A team such as Leeds would have a massive upside in the future.
But it’s my nameYou can’t say that in these parts, it’s considered a bad word!
I’m sure that’s discriminatory
You know, I wouldn't even wish it on Liverpool!
Besides Grealish isn't a tool. He's a cnut
Much better.
Definitely. Take it up with the mods. Enjoy your ban!But it’s my name
I’m sure that’s discriminatory
If they’re playing the long game they should sell to Qatar and buy another club. Qatar then brings in the he stars Jim doesn’t which ups the value of the league thus increasing the value of their new club.
Profit
Liverpool will have the last laugh if we end up with Joel Glazer and Ratcliffe running United
Scenario.
Glazers buy Liverpool cash (United heist).
Take all the profit as fees/consultants etc.
No money for transfers
Get external loans placed on the club to finance transfers.
After a few 'successful' transfer windows you could take back hundreds of millions.
Another option is the stock market trick.
Put the Red Machine on the NYSE.
Class A and B shares, we know the rest, every year sell off a holding for 100 million until you get to 69% and then, despite a genuine affinity to the club, sell.
Last edited:
I know hindsight and all that but what was Fergie thinking taking McManus to court over horse jism, at the time it was obvious it wasn't going to end well and twenty years later here we are. Defintely an over reach on Fergie's part, but it is what it is, hopefully soon we can expunge all trace of them grifters and focus on a new direction for the club, whoever the owners may be.
I don't give a shit about what you think in all honesty. "Genuine anxiety"
there are worse things in life worthy of real and serious anxiety than footballAvram (I think?) already owns a cricket club in Dubai now so probably going to invest his money in the region.
Good to see at least one pro-Qatar poster being honest about why they want Qatari ownership.
Yeah most pro-Qatar posters are claiming they want them for their human rights record but we all know that’s nonsense.
As I’ve missed the last couple of days.. is there any indication over when we’re likely to have a decision?
I saw the mail (Keegan) said “imminent” but has anyone else given a timeframe?
I saw the mail (Keegan) said “imminent” but has anyone else given a timeframe?
The same way Bayern is able to bring in stars, or Barca/Real ? Why should we have the inferiority complex about able to pull in stars, when we are unshackled like the other big clubs?
See it’s easy to not mention the other smaller fake top clubs like PSG/City/Newcastle. We can pull in stars without cheating, you know that right?
Nobody knows the time frame. I doubt the Glazers even do considering there is six of them and they likely need a unanimous decision.
I want Qatar despite their horrible human rights record because capitalism can't make the club competititve. Only fan ownership or state ownership can do that. I've given up on the idea that premier league football is in any way a moral enterprise - it self evidently isn't.
There’s been a hell of a lot of dancing around the “sign Mbappé” motivation from the Qatar cheerleaders, that’s for sure. “We’re worried about the debt… Look at Nice… We just want the Glazers gone…” etc etc
Most definitely. That's what made it so comical to read the Times article mere hours later still claiming Ratcliffe is the favourite and saying nothing has changed. Truth be damned, these journalists will keep churning out the content and stay loyal to whichever camp is feeding them "information."
There's actually been some rumours that the Glazers are the new partners for the scousers, that's why their own looking for funding has been quiet until after the United sale.
Fair enough, it’s a high-pressure job, has to find some way to relax
Nothing is ever straight forward when it comes to this club is it? It'd be too easy and logical for the Glazers to just take the money from the Qataris and go. They're stalling because, I suspect they probably know there is some cash coming in from somewhere sometime in the future and they'd like the value of that added the sale price now.
What a load of shit this is. I could easily post saying there's a lot of dancing around from the pro jim lot who won't admit they just want a white British owner and then pretend that only I know when people are being honest about their motivations and it would be just as disingenuous as this.
Spot-on. The reporters being clueless is just a symptom of the cause. All we can do is hope we are truly near a conclusion.
That’s laughable.
If you can find a “we want a white owner” equivalent to the “Qatar will sign the stars” comment I highlighted then you should definitely quote it.
The apparent upsides to the Ratcliffe purchase have always skewed towards the incredible for me.
A billionaire who will load himself with debt, not use our revenues to service it, will throw in a new stadium to boot whist we keep all of our money and he's doing this because it's a "legacy project"
With gullibility like that you can understand why the Tories keep winning elections and why the magic beans trade is roaring.
None of the the promise-land expectations of what a potential Ratcliffe ownership would look like at Manchester United seem realistically true in any way.
I don't think it's a case of ignoring anyone's human rights record. If Ratcliffe was the sole horse in the race it would still be patently clear that his "hey I'm just one of the fans looking to use up my money my club before I retire" projection is clearly bollocks.
A billionaire who will load himself with debt, not use our revenues to service it, will throw in a new stadium to boot whist we keep all of our money and he's doing this because it's a "legacy project"
With gullibility like that you can understand why the Tories keep winning elections and why the magic beans trade is roaring.
None of the the promise-land expectations of what a potential Ratcliffe ownership would look like at Manchester United seem realistically true in any way.
I don't think it's a case of ignoring anyone's human rights record. If Ratcliffe was the sole horse in the race it would still be patently clear that his "hey I'm just one of the fans looking to use up my money my club before I retire" projection is clearly bollocks.
Straightforward, but true. Other leagues don't have clubs run as capitalist enterprises, but as respective variants of mutualistic (50+1 ownership), 'aristocratic' ( munificent, or prestige sportswashing if you're being critical), or corporatist (with groups/members electing presidents who then use the club to bolster their own business/social prestige and integrate the club with other businesses/community institutions, whilst also putting money directly into the team, and take decisions). We can argue when and where markets are useful - even most western socialists are 'market socialists' of some stripe - but community institutions just don't work run primarily 'for profit' - which is different from selling stuff to remain solvent/meet FFP - just like things like power or water (which is another discussion).
The UK is particularly idiotic around this, both on clubs and resources, compared to Europe. Even in the US, where privatization is often just as extreme (or more with Healthcare), when it comes to sports-teams, half the league structures are run in a way which acknowledges that 'normal' free market isn't efficient or appropriate in terms of long-term stability or fan 'product'
I don't need to find a comment like that, because I, like you, possess the magical ability to know what people's true motivations are
(I don't actually think that's what the pro Jim lot want, I'm trying to show you how ridiculous it is to pretend that you know what other people really believe with no evidence to back it up)
PL clubs have voted Leveraged Buyouts are capped at 65% of club's value which would ban the Glazer style takeover of MUFC, a buyer will have to show a proof of significant funds and not put the debt from the LBO onto the club itself.
I’d suggest you read that post again?
I’m on record here just a few days ago saying I don’t want the money cheat code. Said it many times in fact
Strange that's what he deducted from your post
Strange that's what he deducted from your post
It's because pogue has psychic powers to know what people's true motivations are
Fair enough I read somewhere that it was fully leveraged buyout like 90 % debt which were banned .
It’s a myriad of reasons from a myriad of posters. I completely understand why people don’t want Qatar and completely respect those concerns. It does feel like the pro-Ratcliffe side have their head in the sand over the concerns people have about his ownership. I won’t list them because they’ve been raised numerous times but to summarise they’ve been incompetent owners at Nice, are purchasing with debt albeit against the parent company and that raises concerns over future investment in our legacy and decrepit infrastructure. Then you have their motivation. Why do they want to buy United? They wanted to buy Chelsea a year ago so let’s not pretend it’s for footballing reasons. It all points to Glazers mk II. If that is preferable to Qatar that is more than reasonable but it’s worth understanding the concerns that rather than being desperate to frame it as a juvenile and reductive “want Mbappe” position.
- Status