Don't have time now but I can make a list for you, since apparently you find it too difficult yourself
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I did and I will clarify but of course it's easier to act obtuse than adress the elephant in the room.
While you're at it, make a list of all the thrashings we've handed out and see how it compartes
Dreadful post on so many levels. At least try to be less homophobic if you are going to be so juvenile.
I'm surprised by reports that Sir Jim is leaving the commercial side to the Glazers. They have been terrible at it.
Rebuild it modelled on St James Park and call it James Trafford.
They're so bad at it that pretty much every other club now do what they did in commercial terms
INEOS most likely negotiated the next 26% of the shares with a fixed (probably current) price.
I would bet the clause of getting full control would be if the club hits a certain valuation, which incentivizes both sporting side (ineos) and commercial side of the club (glazers).
Glazers can benefit from selling the remaining shares on a higher price and thus hit the valuation they were having in mind, and Ineos will have full control. Ineos not necessarily will have to buy the rest of the Glazers shares, and I see the later to start releasing more and more of the shares to random investors into their pockets.
I hope that the current deal included that part of the money will have to be stay in the sporting business side, which would have given Ineos the freedom to operate for some time without Glazers involvement on the sporting finances.
Anyway, this is definitely a step into the right direction for the club and we are in a better situation that we were into full Glazers ownership.
New Old Trafford or Old New Trafford or The Devils Cauldron or Theatre Of Mediocrity.
Does anyone actually have any evidence that this Ratcliffe deal goes beyond minority investment?
The promised funds are barely earth shattering, maybe I’ve dipped in & out too much but does anyone have a reason to believe this is the start of a takeover other than ’he would do X without doing Y’.
In the Glazer statement this looks exactly like the investment they’d prayed for.
The promised funds are barely earth shattering, maybe I’ve dipped in & out too much but does anyone have a reason to believe this is the start of a takeover other than ’he would do X without doing Y’.
In the Glazer statement this looks exactly like the investment they’d prayed for.
This.
You dare question SJR & his petro-chemical company, you’re then accused of whataboutery. . .
The crazy thing is you can not want Qatar & see this deal for the sham it is but instead we have people talking about a full takeover that seems as far away as ever.
The Glazers have never done anything to benefit the club, only themselves. Why people believe this deal will be different astounds me.
Exactly.
Remove Qatar from this whole debacle then put this Ratcliffe deal to people 9 months ago & the tune would be very different.
Brilliant post.
Those guys are world-class at what they do.
It is they who have given us the rope to make all the botch-ups that we have over the past ten years. Without them, we would be a consistent mid-table club.
I suspect that this is the scenario that's being negotiated. A lot more complicated than your general full sale since it will depend on a lot of factors now. A higher risk approach.
One factor/variable is based on Ratcliffe being able to turn things around.
Also, how do they define 'success' that will enable value to increase? Its not proportional to how footballing performance is directly related to share value.
Couldn't the Glazers in a few year's time argue that the share valuation has increased primarily due to the ever-increasing commercial activities and is not so relevant to any improvements in footballing performances?
What if Ratcliffe doesn't improve footballing performances (ie fails to turn things around) within an agreed time period? Not something that is too far-fetched considering the complexity of turning a club around or making a club successful again.
Does it mean the status quo ie Ratcliffe doesn't exercise the next tranche of shares required to be in control of the club? Or the Glazers refuse to sell the next tranche since they would argue that Ratcliffe has failed to live up to the promises? Then the club remains in limbo in terms of going forward and ownership?
Last edited:
Either this is sarcastic or a confused understanding of our owners responsibilities; they are responsible for all of the club's current outcomes.
United's Commercial revenues are still amongst the highest despite being non entity on the field for almost 10 years , I guess people on the commercial side must be doing something right .
Then let’s bring Woodward back?
Last one sounds good
This is due to the size of the fan base, not any genius on the part of the Glazers.
The glazers are apparently snubbing going to Bobby’s funeral.
That to me is so low when they are the owners of our club. They want to take everything yet have zero links to us.
Horrible optics yet again and this in a real life scenario shows what kinda men they are. Low level human beings.
That to me is so low when they are the owners of our club. They want to take everything yet have zero links to us.
Horrible optics yet again and this in a real life scenario shows what kinda men they are. Low level human beings.
To be fair weird angle to take, we all hate them, but it’s more likely they’re doing it to not stir up any issues on a day nothing to do with them. It’s not a snubbing.
You might be right. It’s still pretty freaking embarassing when the owners of the club can’t or won’t go to his funeral. They only have 2 major ones ever. Him and Sir Alex.
Rebuild it around a fountain and call it Traffalgar Square.
You think they even know who Sir Bobby is? You are giving them too much credits.
Big day today
Van Gaal was spot on in his assessment that the club is a commercial club, that is precisely what it is sadly, if you look at the links to Blanc then he's being earmarked because his CV is a commercial club's dream. The Ratcliffe investment I fear is merely designed to ultimately furnish his own pocket and obviously the Glazers, they are getting the best in class for their business interests, not sporting interests.
There's going to be nothing announced on the day of Sir Bobby Charltons funeral
You don’t think that Bobby Charlton’s funeral is a big day? Shame on you.
Small day today
Completely agree, You have to wonder what Jim promised the Glazers. They valued the club at 10 Billion. So Jim comes in makes utd relatively competitive, making utd more profitable and as a result both get a nice hefty profit.
1 billion to add 15,000 seats?
Fully agreed. Disgraceful post.
Did he say this before or after he was fired for being shit?
I do remember him denouncing us as commercial whilst sat in front of a billboard, wearing a shirt featuring a few company logos.
SBC sat on their board and publicly endorsed their takeover. He did so in 2005, also. The Glazers had a stand named after them.
I hate the bloodsuckers but it's fair to say their non-attendance today is because there'd most likely be protests if they did.
Because it's whataboutery.
Using ellipsis doesn't make your point.
It's not even good whataboutery, either, just city
or newcastle fan level, transparent, anti-intellectual whataboutery.
I don't think it's 'Ineos PR' supporters are excited in any way about Ratcliffe, rather just 'Glazer fatigue' and not stewing over Qatar's State Bid failing on its behind.
It's something different but you're right to advise caution.
Furthermore, the 'world's best' refusing United is not particularly on the Glazers, either.
United have frequently attempted and failed to land the very best going on years. I remember us failing to get Marcelo Salas, Batistuta, Kluivert and quite a few others in the 1990s whereas potential signings in the 80s fancied it elsewhere. Like Gascoigne, Waddle, Hysen, even Mick Harford.
The Glazers have been a disaster but they aren't to blame for absolutely everything afflicting us.
Why is it homophobic? It’s not a great post but it didn’t read homophobic to me
Quality control
Probably because people on here can be a little sensitive. Its akin to VAR where they always look to disallow a goal. Some members on here always look to find offense in posts.
Using the phrase, and I quote, 'dickriders', to belittle people who support Maguire.
It's (also) homophobic because there are plenty of male commentators who are supporting Maguire, including many on this forum.
It's perfectly fine to criticise Maguire's proponents, just not to use homophobic terminology to belittle them.
Fridge Chutney is absolutely correct to call it out.
Dick riders may have homophobic insinuation.
'may have' if you want to take it as such though. In the grand scheme of things, really not worth getting upset over things which 'may' offend.
It's probably because there have been zero confirmed details about what it will entail.
To get the Glazers out we have to start somewhere.
- Status