INEOS can't take control of the football side quick enough. A full review of the club and changes are desperately needed.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Or…we can keep listening to the usual suspects moaning about missing out on the Sheikh Jassim Super Duper United dreamland.
He won't. They will clear out Murtough and co first.
We need a new direction. The old fart can't come in quick enough. I've no idea if he will be good or not, but something needs to change.
Arnold needs to go first.
I would expect Ratcliffe will have a long face to face meeting with Ten Hag to see what is vision for United's style of play and where he sees them going. He will also want a first hand account of his view of the administration above him and their working practices.
Ten Hag will also be expected to provide an account of the Sancho situation and some of his signings like Antony.
Billionaires are ego and legacy driven. They arent like nepo babies like the Glazers, who have no pride in their product. You telling me Jim Ratcliffe wouldnt want to be the man to take Manchester United back where they belong? He has to look at this as a major challenge. Lets home he shakes this shit up immediately.
Yes but the next time the kit deal gets reviewed Adidas will see it's not worth stumping up the same amount or more, we can impact things now, this has to be a long term boycott.
Yeah, but it expires in 2035.
Absolutely pathetic post. You need to take a look at yourself. You do realise it's possible to be unhappy with how the club is functioning while simultaneously disagreeing with state ownership? The club is about more than trophies.
Try pulling this at the Milan clubs, Real, Barca, Juve, Bayern or even Liverpool and see how far your grift stretches…
Utd fans mean well but have been docile and placid toward the Glazers.
Added to that, the hyper-commercialised nature of the club waters down fan’s behaviour collectively.
Sir Jim, with his own money, not INEOS apparently
Spot on. Hope you get a like from those that can give them
I agree. It is becoming more reinforced as time goes by. To paraphrase Phil Brown; if you offered the Glazer's a) Premier League title and 10 %profit or b) 4th place and 30% profit what would they take?
My expression I use is that there are a large proportion of fans who see Old Trafford as a museum and not a sporting arena to get behind the team.
Remember what Ajax fans did as a protest 3-4 weeks ago?
At this stage I'm all for this footballing side review, get them all gone and give a manager the correct support and advice he needs.
ETH has badly advised, he shouldn't have signed the players he has, none of them make sense.
ETH has badly advised, he shouldn't have signed the players he has, none of them make sense.
It’s almost like it’s too global.
You’ve purchased your ticket, and you’ve booked your flight from Singapore, Norway, Australia, America (insert whatever country you like) would anyone protest or boycott after that expenditure? Of course not, you just want to see the club you support and love and unfortunately daddy Glazer sussed this out a long time ago.
Like being gutted? Not sure why you think vulture capitalism is somehow more noble than being stewarded as a prestige project revolving around both on-field success and community-initiatives, from which the ownership gains some combination of reflected pride and soft-power. Neither of them are ideal compared to fan ownership, but what the Glazers do is a whole different species of malignant, both in principle and in 'its fruits'. City fans may get a few barbs but they've also had beautiful football, great players., victories and money flowing into the area around the stadium.
If you want to go broader, Glazers and ownerships like them have bought into and corrupted politics and Western 'national interests' as much as any Middle Easterner, including think-tanks and PACs that contribute in varying degrees to democracy deficits, tax avoidance, austerity initiatives that cause measurable levels of death and disease, prevarication around global warming etc, all just for their bottom line. They're at least as morally tainted as any orientalised wealthy Middle Easterner, and don't even seem to appreciate concepts like honour or maintenance of sporting institutions, both of which City Group and Newcastle's investors at least seem to have a clearer working sense of when it comes to the optics of their actions, no matter how much of it is about buying respectability: a lot of people just choose to apply lenses selectively.
That is what a friend said to me about 20 years ago. He is a West Ham fan but follows a lot of continental football and he said that was always the problem with Old Trafford. He also said that could come back to bite us in the arse if things did not go well.
How right he is.
People don't want to hear it, unfortunately.
It's all very performative in terms of 'protesting' or taking a hit. Much like how the UK 'punishes' its politicians, or more specifically the Tories.
Just happy to take the punishment and wave the white flag.
I am not particularly an advocate of this form of ownership, but I do understand people's disappointment, anger etc about how this club is being run.
I want custodians who are proactive in decision making and not leaping from one crisis to another. The club does have a fantastic history and evokes a lot emotions or memories to different people. But it is supposed to stand for sporting excellence and competitiveness. Let's at least be in a position to challenge for trophies.
In terms of ownership and morals. That is another debate and another situation that is probably only going to get worse.
I don't think we're talking nobility. I think I'm saying I would rather the club not be used as a state sponsored sportswashing vehicle. Most of your post seems to revolve around wanting city's beautiful football and its fruits, followed by an admirably wordy but extremely vague paragraph that basically says (with zero detail) that the Glazers and ownerships like them (not sure what that means) are just as bad. The bit I've bolded also seems an implicit acceptance of and agreement with sportswashing, which is quite frankly bizarre. It seems to imply that you're ok with nation states using the club to sanitize the more unseemly sides of their regimes. Is that right?
I absolutely want the glazers out but I also certainly don't want us to be state owned and would, honestly, prefer the former to the latter even if it means we're in the doldrums.
To be clear, would you view any and every Middle Eastern owner as ‘state ownership’?
As in, any owner / ownership group who hails from the ME equals state ownership as far you’re concerned?
For once, Gary Neville's podcast with Peter Drury was worth a watch after the game today. Well, from 12mins onwards at least. Says he speaks with lot's of people in the club and he needed to speak for them - to give them a voice. Being held back by the ownership, not being able to get the things done that need doing and just how depressed the whole club is.
If Brexit Jim is the same kind of tory cnut that all NFL owners have been when they colluded to deny any job to Colin Kaepernick because of his socio-political positions, Brexit Jim will ditch Rashford and will have no qualms in doing so. As ugly as it sounds, this is the world we live in.
I'm just a cynical a-hole, mind you.
Last edited:
Eye
Our next ownership almost certainly won’t be successful as he has too much stuff to sort and a slow return on investment owning a smaller percentage I imagine for a while.
The next owner after Jim might be successful but the Glazer’s won’t be seen dead selling to Hamas sympathisers. The Qatar royal family would be a no go I imagine in the current climate.
Glazer’s links to Saudi and Israel don’t really sit right with me personally. They are almost as politically motivated as City’s owners are but unlike City’s ownership it is to the detriment of our club.
We might even get a Middle Eastern backer in the future regardless if Jim sells his stake when it doesn’t work out.
Our next ownership almost certainly won’t be successful as he has too much stuff to sort and a slow return on investment owning a smaller percentage I imagine for a while.
The next owner after Jim might be successful but the Glazer’s won’t be seen dead selling to Hamas sympathisers. The Qatar royal family would be a no go I imagine in the current climate.
Glazer’s links to Saudi and Israel don’t really sit right with me personally. They are almost as politically motivated as City’s owners are but unlike City’s ownership it is to the detriment of our club.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t think selling to Qatar is an option now for the Glazer’s and their contacts. The war and the implications kinda took that bid off the table.
Outside issues have put any Qatari ownership of us on hold until the Glazer’s have long departed our club.
I do actually think Qatar, Dubai or Saudi will own us someday still. They will just wait for more receptive owners in the future. 5-10 years.
Jassim is still young so I don’t think he’ll be overly bothered waiting.
I get the feeling Jim will be an egotist running our club for a vanity project and on the whole coming short in the next decade. I struggle to see any other outcome.
Really? So Busby didn't care about trophies? Ferguson? It's their single minded pursuit of success that has defined the club more than anything else. All the other things that define the club - Busby's babes, the holy trinity, the class of '92 etc wouldn't mean anywhere near as much without the success that came because of them, and Munich wouldn't resonate as much with modern fans without the resurrection that followed, defined by the success in the 60's.
Great, support City then because that's where you belong. Don't try and turn Man United into a disgusting oil club. If you want your Sugar Daddy take PSG or City this isn't the place for you.
I said the club is about more than trophies. Not sure how what you've said contradicts that? They're important and a big part of the club's history but the club is about more than that.
Sir Matt cared greatly about winning but also valued doing things the right way. Hence, the importance he played on the Youth Team.
He would have opposed any kind of state takeover.
A glazer fan From Reddit.
You people are never happy. The increase in dept is mainly owed transfer fees and that comes from the new manager getting backed with unprecedented investments of nearly £400m in two year.
The alternative would be to not sign any more players at all and the dept situation suddenly would look much better but then people would be up in arms about that.
Well, the old debt from the takeover has nothing to do with this. The current increase in debt has 2 causes, covid erasing most of the liquidity from the club and spending more on players than the club can afford with our revenue.
Even if the current debt was cleared we would be back in the same spot. The only long term solutions are to spend less on players, to increase revenue from player sales or increase revenue from commercial deals.
Roll your eyes all you want, he's still right.
Some fans have convinced themselves that state ownership is the only way we will ever be successful again. It's the case for clubs like City and Newcastle but not for United. With competent ownership that invests in the club and appoints the right people we can get back to the top again.
So when do we think this pathetic excuse of a share purchase will be done and finally decided who will be responsible for footballing matters? Next month? Next 6? Next 5 years?
I like ten Hag and I've backed him but he needs to come under that review too. I'm sure INEOS will give him some time under the new structure, how much time he gets remains to be seen. Can we really justify keeping him on if bad results continue and we miss out on CL football?
Ye but what good did it do? Did anything change for the better due to the protest?
Plus United fans already did similar after the ESL anyway
The sad reality is that the fans have little say in such things
I know this keeps being repeated and ignored here, but a 'State' can't take over United, or (formally) any football club. There are groups with varying degrees of affiliation to the state, but you could argue for equally varying degrees of involvement in the state on the part of American companies, given their levels of subsidies, enmeshment within corridors of power: likewise, to a slightly lesser degree, major contractors in this country which have privately taken over some of the functions of state welfare and incarceration etc, though G4S aren't going to be buying a football club any time soon, presumably. Technically there's no fully private economy, just like there's no pre-governmental primordial idea of property (property rights aren't even across every state) but for better or, often, worse, the line between public and large private companies in terms of (a) favourable terms for those companies and (b) the government using them for 'discipline' or as arms of policy-drafting, is a lot blurrier than people like to pretend for convenience sake, 10x more than your average SME: this goes for civil and criminal law-making and bail-outs alike.
In the ME, which I'm not an expert on, so going from posters here who know about this stuff and have detailed in depth, those connections are more explicit in terms of being 'granted' the right' to bid or pursue certain enterprises and favourable credit lines, and owners will have familial connections to the ruling family through extended networks, but don't mean that any country's Sovereign Fund is directly controlling the club, let alone that the State is directing day to day management. Also, any takeover we had would be subject to stricter regulation than City Groups or even Newcastle's...
Absolutely agreed
- Status