So how is that the end of the club?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Joe Glazer overseeing football matters? feck me.
I don't think Malacia will react well to Tom Brady coming and taking his #12 shirt. And what the feck has a busted cycling coach got to do with anything? This ain't Peloton.
I don't think Malacia will react well to Tom Brady coming and taking his #12 shirt. And what the feck has a busted cycling coach got to do with anything? This ain't Peloton.
Eh? I never said anything about greater interference after Fergie?
What happened after Fergie? As far as we know, they (the Glazers) left Woodward in charge.
To what extent did he interfere with football operations? Hard to say, but he (his role, the entire era) can be dismissed as representing what I said above: the structure was entirely fecked up.
Woodward (whatever the feck he actually did or did not) clearly isn't an example of the Glazers being hands-on, though, quite to the contrary.
Woodward either replaced Gill...or he actually replaced Fergie too (as the chief decision maker on the football side), depending on who you believe. But he was nevertheless someone the Glazers trusted to take care of things. They, themselves, remained hands-off as far as we know.
Love how the usual miserable bunch choose to selectively believe only negative rumors and deny positive as false, just to fuel their misery more.
The fact he's on the committee means he has a vetoe, that should be obvious.
He can say he doesn't want Antony and prefers a different option( maybe a cheaper option). There will be everyone looking out for different interests. This shared set up will not work, mark my words.
Didn't Brailsford use the moneyball approach? I'm not sure it's the right template for football.
We. Needed. Glazers. Out. Of. The. Club.
It's very simple.
This deal is prolonging Glazers life. If they had only full sale bids they would have sold it to someone because the Man United ecosystem would not have allowed getting out of strategic review without an answer.
Ineos have given Glazers a very easy decision to make, which is them staying.
You didn't answer my question.
It's like an episode of Richie Rich with the Butler as the DOF.
Because moaning is fun
My bad then. I misunderstood you saying "they did not interfere" when Fergie was there to mean "they interfered" after Fergie left.
Apologies.
Someone will set me straight but no ? "Marginal gains" were the buzz phrase associated with him and Sky / Ineos were always among the wealthiest teams (they're now edged by UAE Team Emirates and on a level with Jumbo Visma but still up there). It's more how they seemingly, for a time, could just find a new Tour winner. They brought some of the team from track racing.
Yeah, branding some news as propaganda and taking something else as air-tight truth is telling, when nothing actually has been set on stone.
No problem, mate.
Introduce Asthma medications
Yeah following a few seconds research on Google it's Marginal gains. Which seems similar to Moneyball. Probably.
My point is your concerns have nothing to do with what currently happens now so why are you taking it into the new structure
Managers get money and the majority of there players. I mean do you even know the real issues.
Yeah, Marginal Gains was his theory. Successful with Team GB Cycling before setting up Team Sky which later became Team Ineos. Some shady stuff around Asthma medication but that's kind of par for the course in Cycling so who knows. Loads of football players are on asthma medication as well.
Knew Joel would keep his dirty fingers in the door.
Every day more stuff trickles out which makes me more and more worried about the future of the club
Every day more stuff trickles out which makes me more and more worried about the future of the club
Not exactly. Marginal gains was about seeking a loads of tiny improvements that may add up to a larger gain. So for example, Team GB started microscopically adjusting rider position, aerodynamically adjusting everything from handlebars to wheels, seeking gains in previously neglected areas of cycling.
Moneyball was more about identifying statistics in baseball that had been undervalued in order to build a successful team on a smaller budget. Essentially, pioneering data analytics.
In a football context I would expect the following to be a clearer interpretation.
Marginal Gains - Improving everything possible off the field in order to help players perform at their best. A good example would be Ten Hag switching our pre-game meetings from The Lowry to Old Trafford so the players have better pre-game prep.
Moneyball - Using data and statistics to identify under-appreciated players playing in 'lesser' leagues around Europe etc. This is closer to what Brighton have been doing by buying the likes of Mitoma and Caicedo for lower fees and selling on at a profit.
How do you want 'your question' to be answered? You want it how you see it and believe?
This is the worst outcome for all this process. Even better Glazers would have stayed alone themselves, because in 2 years they wouldn't have sustained the pressure to remove them.
But now, we have like two (2) owners to fight off.
This will be like fighting in a dark room at 3am and everybody is wearing black clothes.
Imagine a scenario.
1. We perform so poorly than before - Glazers can point fingers to 'it's Ineos which has done this / that' and Glazers will be insulated because apparently they have given out 'all sporting decisions'
2. If we perform so good because of Ineos - Glazers won't leave. Why should they leave a performing Man United.
This is the worst outcome by far.
Glazers have taken the club to its knees. So the club is finished until Glazers leave.
Basically your point is be ignorant. Brilliant, you've convinced me.My point is your concerns have nothing to do with what currently happens now so why are you taking it into the new structure
Managers get money and the majority of there players. I mean do you even know the real issues.
None of our concerns change anything but it doesn't stop me from having an opinion, whole point of any discussion forum.
I can't change the current Middle East crisis but that doesn't mean I don't want the bombing to stop.
The best outcome for the club would have been full sale to Shiekh Jassim but now we are being told he is out of the race as the Glazers were messing him around, hopefully the claims he is out of the race arnt true.
Look, if Jimbo buys 25% and gains control of the football side (as part of his deal with the Glazers), do you really think that Joel will be able to randomly "veto" player transfers or otherwise directly influence United's recruitment policy?
I have to ask this again: How feckin' stupid do you think Jimbo is?
(Also: Why the feck would you think that Joel Glazer has any interest in directly influencing United's recruitment policy, what evidence is there that he has ever been particularly interested in such things?)
I have to ask this again: How feckin' stupid do you think Jimbo is?
(Also: Why the feck would you think that Joel Glazer has any interest in directly influencing United's recruitment policy, what evidence is there that he has ever been particularly interested in such things?)
Yes, if he is paying for it or losing money for it.
I don't think that correct - it's been reported many times that Joel Glazer has slowly got more and more involved in day to day operations at the club over time
It's one of the big reasons we are always slow in the transfer market as he has to agree everything
He also has final say on outgoings doesn’t he? Story a few years ago that he vetoed selling Martial. Not sure if there was any truth to that particular story, but he’s clearly heavily involved in transfers.
Stupid enough to massively overpay for 25% in the hope he can control sporting matters. Except sporting and business matters are intertwined.
Joel Glazer has signed off /vetoed all our major signings for over a decade now. Nothing will change.
Example: “No you can’t have Antony for £60m you can have Analtovic and Rabiot” Only to then pay £65m+ for Casemiro and £90m for Antony. Meaning we have to get Weghorst on loan in January.
This sort of bad recruitment will continue.
Ultimately isn't the aim that the team gets better though?
If Sir Jim's arrival leads to a Premier League title win, will you not celebrate if the Glazers are still in charge?
Sir Jim hasn't made a 25% bid to take the club to it's knees, why would he? At least give him some time to prove that he can make a difference here.
Regarding Brailsford, marginal gains seemed to good to be true and it turned out it was - a lot of riders were bravely trying to overcome asthma and other medical conditions that required delivery of mysterious medical packages. We never fully got to the bottom of it because the team doctor had lost his laptop à la Rebekkah Vardy. Also the team (in its Sky and INEOS guise) had a bigger budget than most rivals and was stacked with talent, including among the domestiques (a bit like City have top quality talent on the bench). The team won a lot but so did Saracens and so do City. It’s not really a template for United.
If its a positive report = bullshit.
If its tabloid shite = "we're fecked!"
If its tabloid shite = "we're fecked!"
It's interesting how some people's opinion and outlook on the club's future is so easily swayed by a few random Tweets.
Yes, I know it has been "reported".
I have never seen a single credible source for it.
Regardless, what we are talking about here is a very specific scenario, namely one in which a new owner (Jim/INEOS) comes in under a particular premise: they buy 25% of Glazer shares and effectively gain control over the "football side" of Manchester United.
The question is whether Joel (or any other Glazer) is likely to interfere with whatever decisions the new party makes on the football side. To me, that likelihood is zero. For two reasons:
1) He (or any other Glazer) doesn't actually give a shit/do not consider themselves football experts.
2) The new party obviously wouldn't enter into any sort of partnership like this without ironclad conditions being in place, i.e. regardless of what the Glazers think of their football expertise, they simply won't have any say in the matter.
At this stage you have to wonder if the people not seeing Ratcliffe and this deal for what it is are actually surnamed Ratcliffe
We all can have opinions I’m just asking you to make it make sense.
It wasn’t making sense so I tried to help you. What are our major issue currently with the ownership?
How does Joel being on the footballing side with Jim’s guy change any of it?
Instead all you’ve said is the transfers that we already get will mean they will continue to be the transfers that we already get.
This news isn't even "bad", Joel will be one of a 3-man committee with 2 other Ineos members so that they can vote him out. The same article you're whining about literally states they'll seize control over the footballing side.
The wording is admittedly concerning where they state that Ratcliffe is "hoping" that this 25% stake will open up a way to full ownership rather than outright stating that it will.
However, that's literally the only concerning part of the FT article and it would still be best to wait for Ineos or the club to communicate clearly what their plans are, they know everyone is waiting for it.
Also, after me and many others were told "Bye" and "Don't let the door hit you on your way out" and other similar things by the pro-Qatari gang, (just because we didn't think we could keep on supporting our club if they were to be taken over by a middle eastern dictatorship) all this after spending the past 15 years calling City "hollow" and "soulless", well, it seems like your beloved Jassim was already out of the race as long as 4 months ago and yet you've all kept patting each other on the back in this echo chamber of a thread for all the nonsense speculation and claims about how he'll eventually buy the club because others have no chance when Qatar are involved.
I hope all of you (who said the above-mentioned to other posters) keep crying, me and many others are loving it.
The wording is admittedly concerning where they state that Ratcliffe is "hoping" that this 25% stake will open up a way to full ownership rather than outright stating that it will.
However, that's literally the only concerning part of the FT article and it would still be best to wait for Ineos or the club to communicate clearly what their plans are, they know everyone is waiting for it.
Also, after me and many others were told "Bye" and "Don't let the door hit you on your way out" and other similar things by the pro-Qatari gang, (just because we didn't think we could keep on supporting our club if they were to be taken over by a middle eastern dictatorship) all this after spending the past 15 years calling City "hollow" and "soulless", well, it seems like your beloved Jassim was already out of the race as long as 4 months ago and yet you've all kept patting each other on the back in this echo chamber of a thread for all the nonsense speculation and claims about how he'll eventually buy the club because others have no chance when Qatar are involved.
I hope all of you (who said the above-mentioned to other posters) keep crying, me and many others are loving it.
Doesn’t seem as though they’ve agreed on very much at all - other than the amount of money.
So there’s going to be a footballing committee of 3 members - 2 of which Ratcliffe has control over. So he’ll have control. What’s the issue? It is semantics. This is the governance mechanism created to give him control.
He won't simply hope he can do that.
Give the old fecker some credit.
Look, I don't like him. Very far from it.
But I don't think he's likely to be duped by a bunch of leeches whose dad was a fairly astute businessman.
(Several of these doomsday scenarios are actually based on the idea that the Glazers are brilliant, it seems. Which is kind of odd, to say the least.)
- Status