Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not much different from the "fake quotes" apparently

Not sure why anyone doubted them. When the Athletic and Tele run the exact same quote...verbatim from "insiders" , it was always going to be his cringe one liner for the deal.
 

The article is terrible because it's myopic and senseless, hypocrisy isn't even an issue. If you use the same logic with Liverpool, you end up with the idea that US based owners like FSG are a disaster, hiring a manager like Klopp is a disaster. What he did in his article can be done for literally any type of ownership because in sport success is rarely constant or guaranteed.
 
From that previous Ben Jacobs tweet, I think they're bidding for 100% but are open to just "majority" with others.
 
It's time for the Glazer's to do the decent thing and accept the bid that leaves the club debt free.

They should then take the money and go and buy Liverpool, hire Ed Woodward again and grind that club into the dirt for a decade or so.

They need to buy Liverpool with leveraged debt, get Phil Jones transferred in on a 7 year contract and ensure that Ed Woodward brings back talent like Sinama-Pongolle (#pongolleback).

They also need to ensure they destabilise the manager by releasing stories of dressing room unrest and disatisfaction with his training methods.

More important than that. They need to keep the same jacuzzi for the next 20 years so they know how we feel.
 
Shockingly bad by Ronay, he's a greater writer but I've always felt he's had a chip on his shoulder regarding United.
It's a completely pointless comparison, one is before a takeover has happened and one is after a league title win. Do you think if the Qataris take over and we win stuff that the articles about us winning will be mostly about the ownership and note the success as a footnote at the end? The time to call state ownership out and to oppose it is before it happens because eventually once they're in the football journalists will have to report on the football.
 
That INEOS statement is giving me Ed Woodward vibes similar to the below:

“We can do things in the transfer market that other clubs can only dream of. Watch this space”
 
It's a completely pointless comparison, one is before a takeover has happened and one is after a league title win. Do you think if the Qataris take over and we win stuff that the articles about us winning will be mostly about the ownership and note the success as a footnote at the end? The time to call state ownership out and to oppose it is before it happens because eventually once they're in the football journalists will have to report on the football.
I would argue one of the best times to call out the ownership of a club is after a title win. Rather than bask in the supposed glory, if you feel dead set against it, as a proper journalist as Ronay deems himself to be, best to call it out.

Instead he wrapped himself around the City and Guardiola story and doesn’t want other clubs to go down their route.
 
Interesting, but what does putting the Manchester back in Manchester United mean? Sounds like Tory PR for doing racist motives.
Because it is. It's also a subtle dig at the Qataris and Americans if they bid. Manchester United to be owned by a Manc born billionaire and not foreigners. Its definitely a a racist statement.
 
What is a "modern, progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership"?
 
Think Ineos would be the wrong choice. Looking at their track record with Nice doesn’t inspire any confidence. And the Qatari statement was much more detailed.
 
There have been literal numerous people who have completely changed their mind. I have shown it.
if you cared aboht human rights in qatar but not when you get Mbappe, I am literally a better person yes.
I really hope you're wumming, because this is so cringe.
 
So if the options are Jim 80%, Glazers 20% or the Qataris, who do we want after reading both PR's?

No one is going to allow them to stay on with 20% or anything at all most likely. Whoever comes is going to be investing money so they aren’t going to allow the Glazers to have same type of shares, put no money in but reap the rewards of the investment.

The Glazers have nothing to offer and being associated with them is a negative.
 
not liking the sound of the INEOS bid AT ALL
 
No one is going to allow them to stay on with 20% or anything at all most likely. Whoever comes is going to be investing money so they aren’t going to allow the Glazers to have same type of shares, put no money in but reap the rewards of the investment.

The Glazers have nothing to offer and being associated with them is a negative.
Well they own the club so they get to say which offer they accept, and if that's what Jim has offered then that's what we get if they accept it. INEOS haven't specified in their PR release who will own the minority stake, which sounds to me like they don't know or they do know and they just don't want to say it.
 
INEOS really don’t strike me as serious, which is a bit strange considering their previous investments across other sports.

At least with the Qataris you know it’s smelly and there’s no real incentive to dress it up. I also feel some folk are happy to give INEOS a bit of a free pass on the basis that they aren’t Qatari. I get that, especially given the obvious issues around state-driven ownership, but they really need more scrutiny themselves, as it’s more than a little whiffy.
 
This read like a "make United great again". Sounds kinda nice but I still have no idea how they are going to invest in the club. For starter a revamped stadium would be nice, don't you think?
Also, majority ownership? What does it mean... He's going to be co-owner with someone?
US investors
 
"Putting the Manchester back in Manchester United"

Sorry, but when did it leave?
 
If he was, shouldn’t they have emphasised that instead of keeping it in the dark?

Probably doesn't want to be involved in the early stages as no need to get the fans onside till the bid reaches the final stages? Someone else may well end up buying us after all.

Using nine two as the foundation name is what makes me think one or more from that group of players is involved and Becks has previous of association with Qatar.
 
I think an INEOS takeover would be less controversial and more straightforward.

Does anyone really think that the Qataris will be allowed walk in and buy Manchester United without major opposition and resistance? It's just not going to happen. The other PL clubs won't want it and will lobby the PL to stop it happening. And between the obvious links to the Qatar state and the PSG ownership issue, they will have plenty of ammunition.

Just because they allowed the Saudi deal to get through doesn't mean they won't block this. They are more than capable of being hypocrites.

Qatar may get their wish in the end but I'm certain it won't be plain sailing.
This is just delusional wishful thinking, sorry to say. Guy fronting the bid is a private citizen and Chairman of a bank so there is a clear distinction between the state and him. We all know that the state is somehow involved and are probably funding it but this guy is as 'fit and proper' as they come.

If the PL couldn't cite human rights issue when the Saudis were coming in I doubt they would do the same here. The only hope for the Anti-Qatar faction is the Glazer greed but if the Qataris are willing to match, indications today are that this isnt a take it or leave it offer its subject to adjustment, then this is done. Having seen Avram Glazer in Qatar in the post world cup period one would assumethat the agreement has been reached and this is just its consummation.
 
Remember SJR said the Glazers were "the nicest people' and 'proper gentlemen'. Was he preparing to go in with them? Weird as hell
 
Status
Not open for further replies.