Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
gaffs said:
Based on what?

There is no chance Ole comes back. That would be an absolute joke.
Click to expand...

I'm speculating based on us being in no real position to appoint a permanent successor and him being one of very few managers available that would be willing to take a temporary post at the club, and it basically being what Chelsea did with Lampard last season.

There's no substance to it other than me possibly putting 2 and 2 together to make 5.
 
Alex99 said:
I'm speculating based on us being in no real position to appoint a permanent successor and him being one of very few managers available that would be willing to take a temporary post at the club, and it basically being what Chelsea did with Lampard last season.

There's no substance to it other than me possibly putting 2 and 2 together to make 5.
Click to expand...

Seeing how bringing back Lampard worked at Chelsea would hopefully serve as a warning to not bring back Ole.
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
Why would Ferguson care about an extra few million for Benzema , not buy any striker at all and then spend the same on a much RVP? Doesn’t make sense unless he was towing the glazers cheap ass line.
Click to expand...

Back then, £35 million would have been a lot for anyone (and possibly a record fee by a British club), let alone for a 21-year-old. I can see why we were reluctant to push it much higher. £40 million+ was ludicrous money for even the best Premier League teams to be spending on a single player.

For context, van Persie only cost us, at most, £24 million, including all potential add-ons (which we may not have paid).

Over the years, the £20-£30ish million range for the best players has become £40-60 million, your £10-20 million range for "good" players is now £20-40 million, and your sub £10 million bargains can push £20 million.
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
Why would Ferguson care about an extra few million for Benzema , not buy any striker at all and then spend the same on a much RVP? Doesn’t make sense unless he was towing the glazers cheap ass line.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind we were coming off the back of three league titles on the trot and two back to back CL finals in 2009. SAF and the club weren't exactly worried even when we lost Ronaldo. He was more pressed in 2012 because we had just lost the title to City on goal difference and he wanted more goals in the team. We weren't going to lose out on van Persie and allow him to go to City.
 
Alex99 said:
Back then, £35 million would have been a lot for anyone (and possibly a record fee by a British club), let alone for a 21-year-old. I can see why we were reluctant to push it much higher. £40 million+ was ludicrous money for even the best Premier League teams to be spending on a single player.

For context, van Persie only cost us, at most, £24 million, including all potential add-ons (which we may not have paid).

Over the years, the £20-£30ish million range for the best players has become £40-60 million, your £10-20 million range for "good" players is now £20-40 million, and your sub £10 million bargains can push £20 million.
Click to expand...


Tom Van Persie said:
Keep in mind we were coming off the back of three league titles on the trot and two back to back CL finals in 2009. SAF and the club weren't exactly worried even when we lost Ronaldo. He was more pressed in 2012 because we had just lost the title to City on goal difference and he wanted more goals in the team. We weren't going to lose out on van Persie and allow him to go to City.
Click to expand...

But you think Ferguson, who retired only a few years after Ronaldo left, was happier to not spend a couple of million to make his team stronger (after losing his best player) , then have a stronger squad? That adds up for you?
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
But you think Ferguson, who retired only a few years after Ronaldo left, was happier to not spend a couple of million to make his team stronger after losing his best player , then have a stronger squad? That adds up for you?
Click to expand...

Yes. £35 million would have been a record fee as it was. I can see why he didn't want to push that to over £40 million for a 21-year-old.
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Keep in mind we were coming off the back of three league titles on the trot and two back to back CL finals in 2009. SAF and the club weren't exactly worried even when we lost Ronaldo. He was more pressed in 2012 because we had just lost the title to City on goal difference and he wanted more goals in the team. We weren't going to lose out on van Persie and allow him to go to City.
Click to expand...
Alex99 said:
Yes. £35 million would have been a record fee as it was. I can see why he didn't want to push that to over £40 million for a 21-year-old.
Click to expand...

We sold Ronaldo for 80, spending half that for a quality 21 yo that Ferguson really wanted was nothing special. And senior players were not happy , that’s part of the reason why Ferguson fell out with Rooney. Again, this doesn’t add up.

Okhams razor would be that Ferguson made a deal with glazers to keep his job after Magnier debable. He won’t kick up a fuss once he’s left in charge of football stuff and that’s what we saw.

Most of his expensive signings (including inflationwere before the glazers were in charge.

Why would Ferguson care about a couple of million for a once in a generation talent like Bemzema after recieving a world record for Ronaldo?

There really is no logic for an ambitious cosch to be so frugal, especially when he’s broken world records multiple times before with Rio (£30 million 10 years before Benzema) and Keane among others. Of course they were bought before the glazers, interesting coincidence.
 
Coops73 said:
Exactly, wasn’t he claiming the Qatari fella would have his feet under the table by November? The bloke is so shit I actually feel a little bit sorry for him, constantly making a tit out of himself.
Click to expand...

Yeah even United Peoples TV refused to give it any credence,also took pot shots at two other Utd fan channels for doing it
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
We sold Ronaldo for 80, spending half that for a quality 21 yo that Ferguson really wanted was nothing special. And senior players were not happy , that’s part of the reason why Ferguson fell out with Rooney. Again, this doesn’t add up.

Okhams razor would be that Ferguson made a deal with glazers to keep his job after Magnier debable. He won’t kick up a fuss once he’s left in charge of football stuff and that’s what we saw.

Most of his expensive signings (including inflationwere before the glazers were in charge.

Why would Ferguson care about a couple of million for a once in a generation talent like Bemzema after recieving a world record for Ronaldo?

There really is no logic for an ambitious cosch to be so frugal, especially when he’s broken world records multiple times before with Rio (£30 million 10 years before Benzema) and Keane among others. Of course they were bought before the glazers, interesting coincidence.
Click to expand...

Anderson wasn't far off being considered a once in a generation talent when we bought him.

The frugality argument just doesn't hold much weight for me when we were offering a record fee for him. Just seems like we hit an upper limit on our valuation and moved on.
 
Alex99 said:
We're going to end up sacking Ten Hag and appointing an interim.

Reasonable chance that interim is Ole.
Click to expand...

Flick did well at Bayern,however struggled with the Germany job. Are there any realistic interim options out there who would take it
 
Alex99 said:
Anderson wasn't far off being considered a once in a generation talent when we bought him.

The frugality argument just doesn't hold much weight for me when we were offering a record fee for him. Just seems like we hit an upper limit on our valuation and moved on.
Click to expand...

So Ferguson decided to spend less on individual players after the glazers took over , adopting some weird value for money player fetish as he got older ? That’s what you think is most likely ? Ok….
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
So Ferguson decided to spend less on individual players after the glazers took over , adopting some weird value for money player fetish as he got older ? That’s what you think is most likely ? Ok….
Click to expand...

I get that our window was disappointing given the loss of Ronaldo and the money we received, I just don't think you're understanding how much £35 million was back then.

I also think Fergie did believe his "value in the market" statement, and that he was ultimately right with that general point, even if £60 million did become the new £30 million.
 
That Potter thing better not be true. Not even confirmed and reports sound like we're going back to homegrown gimmicks. Hire the best man for the job ffs, this includes the new DOF. They don't all have to be local. Please pray it's just press nonsense, it's just they all seem to have a theme. If anyone is impressed by Potter's credentials then they have no business sacking ETH.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah even United Peoples TV refused to give it any credence,also took pot shots at two other Utd fan channels for doing it
Click to expand...
fecking things are everywhere, I’m sure I heard the Goldbridge fella on talkshite the other week but even Sky sports are talking about it and crediting Custis, or at least the sun, with the story, don’t get me wrong I think Sky sports are a bit sensationalist these days but it just goes to show when there’s a story about United they get all giddy and run with it.

If and when this whole clusterfeck takeover/partial investment goes through there’ll be so much bullshit being written, we’ll need wings to stay above it. We might not be relevant on the pitch to these cnuts but we’re the most relevant off it for them.
 
Alex99 said:
Back then, £35 million would have been a lot for anyone (and possibly a record fee by a British club), let alone for a 21-year-old. I can see why we were reluctant to push it much higher. £40 million+ was ludicrous money for even the best Premier League teams to be spending on a single player.

For context, van Persie only cost us, at most, £24 million, including all potential add-ons (which we may not have paid).

Over the years, the £20-£30ish million range for the best players has become £40-60 million, your £10-20 million range for "good" players is now £20-40 million, and your sub £10 million bargains can push £20 million.
Click to expand...
Chelsea weren't complaining. We also should have been forking out big on a midfield instead of 38 year old Giggs and Cleverley. The owners have really fecked us over the last 15 years and every single person drawing a colossal salary at this club has enabled it. The careers Benzema and Hazard have had has proved SAF absolutely wrong.
 
Right, this is 15-12-23 and INEOS and their bullshit can take a hike. i decided I will write a leter to joe Biden, INEOS, Man Utd board and Ten Hags mother that for me, the deal is OF! GO AWAY!! GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE AND TAKE YOUR TAKE OVER BULLSHT WITH YOU. fecking Rathcliff is just another Glazer AND I TOLD YOU SO!
 
Coops73 said:
fecking things are everywhere, I’m sure I heard the Goldbridge fella on talkshite the other week but even Sky sports are talking about it and crediting Custis, or at least the sun, with the story, don’t get me wrong I think Sky sports are a bit sensationalist these days but it just goes to show when there’s a story about United they get all giddy and run with it.

If and when this whole clusterfeck takeover/partial investment goes through there’ll be so much bullshit being written, we’ll need wings to stay above it. We might not be relevant on the pitch to these cnuts but we’re the most relevant off it for them.
Click to expand...

Yeah Goldbridge has a phone in on a Saturday
 
This place runs off recency bias and it’s hilarious.

go back to when Potter was at Brighton and most here were calling him a great manager etc.

a stint at the shitshow (worse run than us btw) Chelsea and he’s now the modern day Alan Curbishley… it’s embarrassing.

for what it’s worth I don’t believe Potter to be the right man, but I don’t think he’d be a bad appointment as tactically at Brighton he was very very good and his in game management from what I remember was excellent too.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
This place runs off recency bias and it’s hilarious.

go back to when Potter was at Brighton and most here were calling him a great manager etc.
Click to expand...

It's because he has no history to suggest the "great manager" had a bad stint at Chelsea, so people are naturally shifting their perspective of him, especially when you see De Zerbi doing well in his stead at Brighton.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
This place runs off recency bias and it’s hilarious.

go back to when Potter was at Brighton and most here were calling him a great manager etc.

a stint at the shitshow (worse run than us btw) Chelsea and he’s now the modern day Alan Curbishley… it’s embarrassing.

for what it’s worth I don’t believe Potter to be the right man, but I don’t think he’d be a bad appointment as tactically at Brighton he was very very good and his in game management from what I remember was excellent too.
Click to expand...

That combined with 20/20 perfect hindsight visions.
 
Rake said:
It's because he has no history to suggest the "great manager" had a bad stint at Chelsea, so people are naturally shifting their perspective of him, especially when you see De Zerbi doing well in his stead at Brighton.
Click to expand...

We tried the "great manager" too - it's almost like it has no basis when it comes to Manchester United.
 
There's no world where we appoint a new full time manager in the next few months. We have an interim CEO and the sporting operations are about to completely change. ETH might get fired, but if he does it would just be some random caretaker. Which is why there's no point in firing ETH - that's even ignoring the cost and the fact that he's a pretty proven 'better than caretaker' manager. Why would Stewart or whomever bother with this pain during their brief tenure?

We desperately need Ratcliffe et al to move this along. Without that, we're going nowhere. Is there really nothign else fans can do to influence the parasites?
 
Beachryan said:
There's no world where we appoint a new full time manager in the next few months. We have an interim CEO and the sporting operations are about to completely change. ETH might get fired, but if he does it would just be some random caretaker. Which is why there's no point in firing ETH - that's even ignoring the cost and the fact that he's a pretty proven 'better than caretaker' manager. Why would Stewart or whomever bother with this pain during their brief tenure?

We desperately need Ratcliffe et al to move this along. Without that, we're going nowhere. Is there really nothign else fans can do to influence the parasites?
Click to expand...

It really shouldn’t need to be spelled out like this but alas, fans are so desperate for a change they can’t think logically.

Unless it gets really bad for ETH (he for example is still doing plenty better in the league than Ole when he got fired), the smart move for INEOS would be to take stock of the situation and plan for Summer 2024. Not much is gonna be changed by doing anything drastic in January, I’d argue a Lampard-esque interim could make things even worse.
 
miliebrowndivorceattorney said:
Right, this is 15-12-23 and INEOS and their bullshit can take a hike. i decided I will write a leter to joe Biden, INEOS, Man Utd board and Ten Hags mother that for me, the deal is OF! GO AWAY!! GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE AND TAKE YOUR TAKE OVER BULLSHT WITH YOU. fecking Rathcliff is just another Glazer AND I TOLD YOU SO!
Click to expand...
Now this is the quality of posting I come to the redcafe for
 
padzilla said:
There are rumblings this is being pushed back to January now.
Click to expand...

I reckon it'll take longer.

Ineos are subject to Unfit and Improper FA testing, which takes as long as a cheque takes to launder.

Best off waiting rather than becoming increasingly anxious from speculation.
 
Reasonable chance our interim will be Kai Rooney the amount of time this is taking to get over the line.
 
Pes6Monster said:
I reckon it'll take longer.

Ineos are subject to Unfit and Improper FA testing, which takes as long as a cheque takes to launder.

Best off waiting rather than becoming increasingly anxious from speculation.
Click to expand...

1. Do you have ties to a tyrant/dictator?
2. Are you buying this club to sportswash your reputation?

If the answer to both these questions is yes, please proceed with purchase.

If the answer is no, here’s another 1000 pieces of criteria you need to adhere to before getting to the next stage of our fit and proper test.
 
Chumpsbechumps said:
1. Do you have ties to a tyrant/dictator?
2. Are you buying this club to sportswash your reputation?

If the answer to both these questions is yes, please proceed with purchase.

If the answer is no, here’s another 1000 pieces of criteria you need to adhere to before getting to the next stage of our fit and proper test.
Click to expand...
It took 18 month for Newcastle’s takeover to pass the PL OADT, it wasn’t just waived through as you’re clearly hinting at.
 
I kind of felt they were waiting until after the Liverpool hammering to announce so next week makes sense.

But also, who even cares anymore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.