Nope.
The 'likes of me' will only grow in prominence. Going nowhere, pal.
You'll have to harden your position. Double-down. Crawl up further.
And for what?
It won't be United winning, chump.
It'll be Qatar.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Nope.
The 'likes of me' will only grow in prominence. Going nowhere, pal.
You'll have to harden your position. Double-down. Crawl up further.
And for what?
It won't be United winning, chump.
It'll be Qatar.
Well said. Tired of his constant repetitive virtue signalling
Back to bed, so, and when you wake up, try not allowing The Spectator do your thinking for you.
You won’t last long around here. You’re obviously a WUM and everyone has got your number now.
I feel very optimistic tbh. This will be done.
95% of your posts are in this thread and they are all the same. And I suspect your posts are plagiarised from the previous 2,000 pages.
Try and have some 'original thoughts' for a change, instead of your constant rinse/repeat regurgitations.
I pop onto this site about once a fortnight and read many threads and have to agree with you. Your man pes6 is not 95% anything it's more like 100% reiterating the same thing over and over but he is right, so he is. This here takeover is more about Qatar and not us. It bears (bares?) repeating because it's bang on.
They have taken us over at a point of vulnerability but we are not city or newcastle and nothing has changed we are still United but now we are getting a whole new political takeover to be a political tool and that's about it.
Plus, let's be honest exactly do you really think calling people 'virtue signallers' and telling people to 'sod off' is itself a mark of 'original thinking'?
There now seems to be a consensus of pro-Qatar posters who think they speak for the club. They don't.
Last edited by a moderator:
It'll be both but yeah mostly Qatar.
Don't think the naysayers care though, chief, you are on the wrong forum for human rights et al.
Most of the posters here just want United to finish first no matter the cost. It's the religious aspect now taking effect.
'We do what we want'.
The only way you'll change their mind is with deep pockets.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignore that guy. He's clearly not here to discuss but to preach and I'm being generous in assuming he's not a WUM (which I've said many times he is, so good to see people are catching on).
This is filled with nothingness, don't recommend listening as they're rehashing everything said in the press recently with no real insight into the process.
Why will it hurt to listen to it? Just because you assume it’s not newsworthy doesn’t mean others will.
I swear that this place thrives on negativity. It’s like you’re happy being negative - it’s weird.
My conspiracy theory is that both Qatar and Ratcliffe are actually wanting the other party to "win". They want nowhere near this shi* show but are almost trying to save face.
They still want to appear to be in the running without actively going all out for it.
They still want to appear to be in the running without actively going all out for it.
Yeah it’s definitely better to lose than to pull out on your own terms
I dont think big business play around like that. They would simply call it for what it is and remove their offer.
nobody knows which one will be better for the club
everyone has their opinion but as the Glazers have demonstrated, spending a lot of transfers and wages doesn’t guarantee you anything
in fact, I’d say it’s just as likely they’ll both be crap as either one being great for the club
the futures looking grim
Because I've listened to it and all they talk about is things that has been repeatedly reported and covered, nothing new. If Groundhog Day is your favourite film, go for it, give it a listen and lap that shit up.
Not negative, just honest.
I don’t think INEOS will be another Glazers. INEOS want to carve out a place next to Red Bull as a company associated with sporting excellence to enhance their corporate reputation. They aren’t after quick dividends.
Thanks for your permission, I’ll check it out - I love Bill Murray movies.
You're probably correct about INEOS. Would still prefer Qatar, though.
As demonstrated at Nice.
what would be the point of "appearing to be in the running" and losing, as opposed to just not being in the running?
aren't the latest bids legally binding?
I tend to agree with this but I also think they have a less than 25% chance of taking over, too many fans have hugely underestimated the issues with Minority share holders involved in this process, it’s simply untenable until INEOS approve a 100% bid which includes all share holders, that might simply be too rich for even them?
On the contrary, that would suggest that new owners may indeed come in before Xmas and they would be looking to change everything and everyone of United sat 13-14th in the PL on 27 points after 19 games that’s 8 wins 3 draws and 8 defeats which would give them every chance to try and save their bacon by throwing ETH under the bus however, the outcry from the fans to get rid of Arnold, Murtough etc would
Relentless!
It may seem obvious to some, but someone like five pages ago said something that resonated with me and pretty much summarized the Glazers problem, and it's that they don't care about the football aspect enough to want to win at it. Which is what a big team like United ultimately needs.
City owners cheated concerning transfer rules. To win. So did Barcelona's for years in payments to the refs. Real Madrid owners are actively suing UEFA and keeping the threat to sue another 10 of their european rivals, esentially because they want the rules changed so they can win more. These are extreme examples for sure, but they point to the same direction. Do you imagine the Glazers trying to cheat or at least work the system in United's favour? The only thing I can think of is the leveraged buyout which was Malcom's move and it was about working the system in order to take profit from United to themselves.
An interesting dimension of this is that even when the Glazers don't know/don't care about the football side as long as they make money (because yes, they do actually try and invest United's money when they perceive their yearly dividends are at stake), they are sensible to the press and social media's general opinion. Two of the last big decisions they had to make were actually changed by public/fans opinion even when they meant less potential money: the Super League and the Greenwood situation. In both cases, the owners perceived the backlash to be worse than the potential benefit and backed down.
That in itself is a hint that protesting at some level does work. Problem is, the portion of fans willing to take action will never be more than 10%, maybe 20% of total fans. Which is not enough to take extreme measures that actually work. The other 80-90% don't really care enough to be inconvenienced by sitting out matches, stop buying t-shirts and merch or turn off the TV for what is probably one of their few escapes from the hardships of daily life. Which is why the protesters have to play it smart in order to have a chance at influencing the decisions.
Regarding the sale I don't think the decision is going to be influenced by optics so much as by money and by sentiment (this is Malcom's greatest gift to their sons after all, and they probably know they can't make something as profitable by themselves so they have problems letting go). That explains why they are dragging their feet and extending the deadline for as long as they can. But eventually they won't be able to do so without pissing off most of their future partners and allies (Qatar, INEOS, Rayne, banks, smaller investors, etc), and that will be the decisive moment.
Regarding moral qualms, United's already been open to billionaires money for decades and 99% of it is either blood money or have been touched by blood money in the past, so IMO that ship has pretty much sailed. Plus, from my understanding football has been used as a social/political tool from its origins, with the process accelerating between the late 70s and early 00s particularly in Europe and in the UK. Professional football's current state (with consortiums, state clubs, sportswashing, oil/blood/illegal money pretty much everywhere) is at its core a consequence of that. So in the end where to draw the line in the sand depends on every single fan/supporter, knowing there's a chance it has to be redrawn anyway because every one of us likely love the sport more than the hate/repulsion we feel for the cnuts who have been ruining it for ages. It's a sad state of affairs but it's the hand we're dealing with.
TLDR: Glazers don't care enough to win. They do care about backlash though, so protests work until a certain point. They won't in this case as there are bigger issues at stake, but since they started this process their days are numbered anyway. Thing is, football is rotten at its core anyway no matter who the new owner is, so as a fan you can choose the hill to die on and that's it. And hope the new owner wants to actually win on the field, of course.
City owners cheated concerning transfer rules. To win. So did Barcelona's for years in payments to the refs. Real Madrid owners are actively suing UEFA and keeping the threat to sue another 10 of their european rivals, esentially because they want the rules changed so they can win more. These are extreme examples for sure, but they point to the same direction. Do you imagine the Glazers trying to cheat or at least work the system in United's favour? The only thing I can think of is the leveraged buyout which was Malcom's move and it was about working the system in order to take profit from United to themselves.
An interesting dimension of this is that even when the Glazers don't know/don't care about the football side as long as they make money (because yes, they do actually try and invest United's money when they perceive their yearly dividends are at stake), they are sensible to the press and social media's general opinion. Two of the last big decisions they had to make were actually changed by public/fans opinion even when they meant less potential money: the Super League and the Greenwood situation. In both cases, the owners perceived the backlash to be worse than the potential benefit and backed down.
That in itself is a hint that protesting at some level does work. Problem is, the portion of fans willing to take action will never be more than 10%, maybe 20% of total fans. Which is not enough to take extreme measures that actually work. The other 80-90% don't really care enough to be inconvenienced by sitting out matches, stop buying t-shirts and merch or turn off the TV for what is probably one of their few escapes from the hardships of daily life. Which is why the protesters have to play it smart in order to have a chance at influencing the decisions.
Regarding the sale I don't think the decision is going to be influenced by optics so much as by money and by sentiment (this is Malcom's greatest gift to their sons after all, and they probably know they can't make something as profitable by themselves so they have problems letting go). That explains why they are dragging their feet and extending the deadline for as long as they can. But eventually they won't be able to do so without pissing off most of their future partners and allies (Qatar, INEOS, Rayne, banks, smaller investors, etc), and that will be the decisive moment.
Regarding moral qualms, United's already been open to billionaires money for decades and 99% of it is either blood money or have been touched by blood money in the past, so IMO that ship has pretty much sailed. Plus, from my understanding football has been used as a social/political tool from its origins, with the process accelerating between the late 70s and early 00s particularly in Europe and in the UK. Professional football's current state (with consortiums, state clubs, sportswashing, oil/blood/illegal money pretty much everywhere) is at its core a consequence of that. So in the end where to draw the line in the sand depends on every single fan/supporter, knowing there's a chance it has to be redrawn anyway because every one of us likely love the sport more than the hate/repulsion we feel for the cnuts who have been ruining it for ages. It's a sad state of affairs but it's the hand we're dealing with.
TLDR: Glazers don't care enough to win. They do care about backlash though, so protests work until a certain point. They won't in this case as there are bigger issues at stake, but since they started this process their days are numbered anyway. Thing is, football is rotten at its core anyway no matter who the new owner is, so as a fan you can choose the hill to die on and that's it. And hope the new owner wants to actually win on the field, of course.
Last edited:
I've said this quite a few times on this site. Why doesn't someone post a thread seeking creative ideas from the Utd fanbase regarding how we can force the parasites out of our club?
Have always admired him.
I don’t know why anyone compares INEOS to the Glazers. They would pump money into the club, something the Glazers have never done and they enter any sport to be successful which again is something the Glazers have no interest in.
They might be useless but that applies to Qatari and any other bid. There can’t be a Glazer 2.0 because the club is in such a dreadful state and the purchase price will be so high that whoever buys it cannot operate a business model similar to the Glazers.
I noticed on the match discussion that you felt defeats or no wins in the upcoming fixtures would make this situation untenable. Given what Romano has said "things going on in the background" and "the squad unsettled by the takeover uncertainty" Hellier, the bloomberg journalist, "my gut feeling is that Sheikh Jassim will prevail in the end," Phil Brown and the United Muppetier stating that there have been discussions between INEOS and Raine.
Do you or anyone think that October could be relatively progressive month in this situation?
Right now I will take either,yes Ratcliffe means keeping those pair of leeches but at least they wouldn't have any power
To be completely honest, nothing would surprise me with this takeover however a lot of very credible people have said they seeing it going to Qatar, I think something we very close 3 months ago and the Glazers renegotiated and upset the bidders. My current theory is ;
1. There is ongoing negotiations between Raine and SJ and also INEOS, the Glazers want £6bn, that’s just for them, the debt will have to be paid first before the £6bn is paid for 69% of the club shares and control. They hold all the assets of the club but also all the liabilities which includes an ever increasing Bank of America loan with ever increasing interest rates.
2. INEOS had no intention of buying more than 51% of the club and believed that £2.7-3bn would be enough to take control, however they never factored on the 31% minority share holders.
3. There may be an announcement in next two weeks saying that the Glazers are negotiating a final sale price and due diligence with SJ and 92 Foundation which would certainly be why representatives of bloomberg are speaking out, however they could just as easily change their mind and ask for more again, I do think the Qatar bid is very close to £6bn but it probably includes the club debt of around £800m not the amortised transfer debt, just historical plus club the credit line used for transfers this summer.
4. There has been more than enough time from a M&A point of view to have the framework of the deal ready for potential completion in October to November 23 which would initially grant 92 Foundation the controlling 69% b class shares, after this they would probably want to delist from the NYSE and make a fair trade offer of $36-38 per share for the remaining A Class shares which could take final completion of the club January/February 2024
5. If they complete the contract to buy the Glazer shares by November 23, then pass the fit and proper Directors test, providing they pay off the debt and make an investment of £30m they could probably spend £150-200m in the January transfer window, especially if they got rid of McTominay and Maguire.
6. If and it’s a still a very big if SJ does take over by October/November 2023 and ETH has lost 6 or 7 games from say 14/15 EpL games, they will get rid of him without hesitation and try and bring in Zidane who has huge connections with Qatar.
I think you are spot on about point 6,the fixtures look decent up to City at end of October,however I am very wary of saying that with the current form
Getting rid of Ten Hag would be a mistake I in my opinion. Yes, he may have made some mistakes with substitutions in games and perhaps some fitness preparation. I do not think he should have been so open about the Sancho situation.
But he has done a lot of good work. He needs put in the situation where he is just concentrates on coaching, preparations and fitness. Also, leasing with transfers. But not having to deal with crisis after crisis.
He was given a lot of promises during the last 3 months and the board have not delivered. He has cleared out a lot of the squad. I think Maguire might leave in the winter because Ten Hag is not budging.
Zidane is not the answer.
Truly...how many managers have to get sacked before people will unanimously realize every manager is destined to fail at this club within a few years until the ownership and structure are overhauled?
Qatar is not going to tolerate Man Utd going to places like Anfield and Etihad and getting smashed by six and seven goals. Someone will have to pay the price and it will be Ten Hag. Just because a lot of fans have become brainwashed by the scum Glazer Family to think this is normal and should be accepted, doesn’t mean Qatar will.
Also Ten Hag seems very arrogant, he wanted control of transfers at all costs, Qatar will appoint a Sporting Director like they do at PSG. Will Ten Hag give up control or will he try and cause problems ? Ten Hag is not the one paying close to Six Billion, Qatar is, it will be their Asset and they will decide what to do not Erik.
Any new ownership always hires their own manager. I really don’t see Ten Hag lasting long and he is not at the level of Klopp or Guardiola, I think De Zerbi or Nagelsmann will be in by Summer 2024.
You've assumed a feck ton which is your mistake. His first season was one of adaptation and settling in whilst getting broad level results to get to a certain level. And he's only got control now because we likely don't have a good enough structure to support him. That's not his fault. He worked with a proper structure at Ajax and will adapt to a structure here.
He shouldn't have to adapt and that's only happening because our structure is utterly dire
It's funny how people aren't even pretending that it's not the Qatari state anymore.
- Status