Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Berbaclass said:
This was the INEOS Chelsea statement

D3D283D4-4C8A-4416-89A4-E4215DF22328.jpg
Click to expand...

At least you know that ratcliffe isn't wasteful for a British cracker!

Big believer in recycling.
 
WPMUFC said:
Feel like we have to qualify every quote with "i'd prefer to not have Qatari or Saudi owners"

But Ratcliffe's PR is absolute dog shite....."Trust me i'm British and basically reusing his Chelsea bid PR release document" vs "This is exactly what we will do, no debt, heavy investment, comments about the stadium"
Click to expand...

His bid seems very weak but it's a no contest regardless.
 
Ratcliffe isn’t a step forward at all. No fresh debt added is very deliberate phrasing. The existing debt remains.
 
Tarrou said:
I can’t decide if that gooner chap genuinely thinks Qatar is the taliban or is just being a bit racist in a “Well they’re all terrorists innit” kinda way.. or it’s an amazing wum ( least likely )
Click to expand...
Weed and alcohol, maybe
 
Tarrou said:
I can’t decide if that gooner chap genuinely thinks Qatar is the taliban or is just being a bit racist in a “Well they’re all terrorists innit” kinda way.. or it’s an amazing wum ( least likely )
Click to expand...


He's sings no surrender to the IRA and all.
 
Fts 74 said:
Seems everyone has made up their mind Qatar or nothing.

I'm pretty sure it's been explained in great detail on here about Ineos they definitely have the money.Personally, I'd prefer Jim Ratcliffe which I'll probably get pelters for but hey ho.
Click to expand...
Both bids have their pros and cons. From a moral standpoint I'll take Ratcliffe any day.
 
onemanarmy said:
If social media is representative for our fanbase we are truly fecked.
Click to expand...
And who do you think the 'social' on social media refers to? Chickens pecking iPhones on twitter?

Some of you genuinely talk loads of shite.
 
BluesJr said:
Absolutely no one should be supporting that bid from Ratcliffe, regardless of the Qatar interest. Red flags everywhere.
Click to expand...
Lazy PR from Ratcliffe too. Not that fan support matters but if he's successful then surely he would want the fans backing him but it feels like a lot fans are more and more dubious.
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

In reality the only potential hang up with UEFA is regarding having both teams in the same competition but there's already been an established precedent with the RB clubs so that won't be an issue at all.

Especially given the UEFA heirarchy's already cozy ties with Qatar.

Not to mention, they're not the FA or PL so they have zero jurisdiction over having any say regarding the potential sale of MUFC. UEFA talk is vastly overstated and will not be a problem if the Qatari bid comes out on top
 
Would obviously prefer a company like Ineos over a state-backed purchase but ultimately I wouldn't expect a United fan to support any bid that doesn't remove the debt from the club.
 
AlPistacho said:
Just like the Glazers didn’t have £800m in cash ffs. How blind can you be? We heard about US investors wanting a piece of United when United got put for sale… they are doing it through a “friendly face”
Click to expand...
He owns a company that has an annual turnover 50bn and has assests of 17bn.

It wouldn't be anything like the Glazers takeover IMO. We need to wait and see what is his plan. Probably all irrelevant in the end as the Qataris can and will easily outbid him.
 
Dread Devil said:
That was the start in many ways, we had some great times with Robson and he was my favourite player as a youngster……he started to get injured quite often towards the end but from what I can remember he played as combative as Keane but a little more skillful at times, they both had the knack of being in the right place at the right time and they both also protected and encouraged our young talent on the field……Is Casemiro our Robson / Keane….possibly a little more subtle but he is becoming that midfield general who fans and players adore..

For me though Cantona was the key , he gave us that belief to get titles over the line…those few years were amazing…he worked with the youngsters showed them to play with passion and play with style, to believe in themselves…that transition was beautiful.
Click to expand...

Agree. We have similar footballing life experiences and perspectives
 
The Ratcliffe bit is not inspiring whatsoever. Sounds like Glazers 2.0 to me.
 
Rightnr said:
It's for damn sure more representative than a fecking Athletic poll behind a paywall.

Looking around social media, which OK is dominated by younger demographic but that's the future anyway, it's usually 70-80% in favour of Qatar.

Of course, you're free to live in denial.
Click to expand...
I knew you guys would just disregard them as some type of propaganda, that's why I didn't bother posting it at all.
 
Samid said:
Come on mate, City had won nothing for decades and were getting slapped around 8-0 by mid table dross like Boro. They were maybe an old great club back in your days but in modern times they are literally a story of rags to riches.

Nothing like the self-sustained money machine that we are today.
Click to expand...
So you can only be a great club if you're winners in modern times, and what do you consider modern times?
 
SER19 said:
This is just an idiotic point. Im not going to engage much further than to say that if you cant differentiate between citizens of a country, ie the glazers, and the flaws of a nation (Every nation is flawed. literally all of them) and any ownership where the actual murderous, homophobic, brutal state has a hand in ownership as a form of using this historic club to sanitise itself (hint, they dont need the money), then you're less worth engaging than this post suggests. I'm not even going to get into how just woefully vague and abstract the sweeping statements you made are. Its like teenage level stuff.

As I said I'm not wasting much time having these types of discussions online. I dont believe they lead to anything.

Support qatar all you like. I wont. Theyre our individual choices. Thank god we live in countries where we're free to make them
Click to expand...
Talk about sweeping statements?? I've never heard such a ridiculous exaggeration in my life. 'Using a club to sanitise itself'? What does that even mean? And where are your facts? I don't see the difference between a country that is institutionally racist and gun-crazy to one that is institutionally homophobic and misogynistic. They're just different types of shit but still shit at the end of the day. But you do whatever makes you sleep better at night.
 
bonsaiboy said:
Honest question, what do you want us to be outraged at? The human rights stuff or the outrageous money stuff? If the latter, this is (hopefully) a different story. We've always had the revenue to spend big even without owner investment - in fact, even with our owners taking money from the club. City's fortune came from nowhere - a small, failing club bought and invested in through dodgy sponsorship deals and shady money management.

Even with a rich owner there's no need for any of that dodginess. We don't need inflated sponsorship deals. We should be self-sustaining still when it comes to transfers with the benefit that profits don't need to go into paying down debt or dividends and that we can upgrade facilities without loading up further debt. That's harder to justify but as long as it's done within the rules I don't see the issue. Businesses get bought all the time and have their debts repaid, this is really no different.

The human rights issue is by far the thornier issue and I'm still not sure how to feel about it.
Click to expand...

both the source of the money (being owned by a dictatorship with a terrible human rights record) and the outrageous amount of money is the issue for me. let's put the first one aside.

I'm really not trying to act holier-than-thou. For example, I could justify the new owners paying off our debt since it was created by the Glazers in the first place and not by the club.
But I really don't want the new owners to suddenly pour hundreds of millions out of thin air on the squad, not even on a new stadium or training facilities. Even a new stadium would represent a huge competitive advantage in terms of revenue and opportunity cost, while other clubs had to take out huge loans to build theirs. What's the point in that?
 
Tarrou said:
its ridiculous

they’ve gone full brexit with it
Click to expand...
That bit is bad but putting the 'Manchester' back in Manchester United just screams boomer thinks he's come up wiht a great idea. Donald Trump vibes.
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Both bids have their pros and cons. From a moral standpoint I'll take Ratcliffe any day.
Click to expand...

Moral standpoint: Glazers or Ratcliffe

Financial standpoint: Qatar bid

Unfortunately in real world, moral standpoint is worth nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.