Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
How are so many still going on about the Glazers staying on as part of the INEOS bid when it makes absolutely zero sense and it was explained what majority meant pretty much straight away.
 
Not a fan of Ratcliffe but it's these American vultures we need to ensure don't get a sniff.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Because I don't believe I am "selling my soul" by not caring all that much about who owns a sports team I support?

As I said drama queen.
Click to expand...
Not caring sounds like a cop out for you not understanding or simply claiming ignorance about who the owners could be tbh.

Either that, or if you don't care about how your football club is ran, then maybe you just don't care much about the club. Fair enough. There are plenty of fairweather fans.
 
Rapsel said:
There there, I come in peace and United is quickly becoming my second team. I wasn't so much equating our situation to yours but trying to offer an outlier's perspective and not so much one from a moral highground but from a supporter of a club that like United has pedigree and a football history most other clubs are jealous of. I thought you would appreciate that on a forum.
Click to expand...
If the Glazers owned Ajax and were looking to sell you to Quatar, do you think they would give a shit about your 'blood on the streets'?
 
Of course the Qatari bid is best for the sporting project. They couldn't care less about profits for one and they have more money than sense.

It's just that it stands for everything wrong with the world and is totally against the ethos of this great football club.

I can see why people are conflicted. I want to see the glory days return too but I don't want to be tarred with the same brush as human rights abusers and worse until the end of time either.
 
redshaw said:
You're not realizing how much United have paid in interest so far and will continue to pay. 800m has been paid in interest just for the Glazers to have the privilege of owning the club, 800m of the clubs money is lost while they do nothing, the debt helps them not the club. Being debt free from 2005 onwards would've meant United could've financed a new stadium complex. I've already said many times how much of the money has been wasted and that debt in not inherently bad, United could've remained competitive and still financed a new stadium under better management. United have been strangled by it, and by Glazers poor running once Fergie left. We're sat with a old decaying stadium, 10 years of throwing money away. We've missed so much possible prize money and chances to rebuild the stadium complex, the debt and the Glazers have been horrific.
Click to expand...

If we were debt free under the Glazers, they’d likely have taken huge dividends.

The debt borrowed to leverage the buyout was on awful terms, that swallowed up so much. Currently United pay 18m /year, that’s nothing for INEOS or the Qatari bid to take on.
 
As much as I despise the human rights abuse and anti-lgbqt sentiment from Qatar, I would rather full ownership from Qatar than any ownership from Ratcliffe that involves the Glazers being involved in any way still.
 
Roboc7 said:
How are so many still going on about the Glazers staying on as part of the INEOS bid when it makes absolutely zero sense and it was explained what majority meant pretty much straight away.
Click to expand...

Because so many are sooooo desperate for ME money, they are desperately trying to find anything wrong with the INEOS bid.
Doesn’t matter how many time it’s explained, they want to throw shit at INEOS.
 
alexthelion said:
How will they finance infrastructure improvements that are sorely needed?

More debt added to the purchase debt?

They are just piling debt upon debt.
Click to expand...

20 years ago pre Glazers when the club was well run and debt free, if the club had decided to build a new stadium then yes they'd have had to take on debt, build a new stadium and then pay the debt off. That's how most clubs do it and that's how it should be done.

United don't need a sugar daddy to fund a new stadium. If Spurs can do it a club the size of United can.

But in the unlikely scenario of United being taken over by Ineos I don't imagine a new stadium project would be green lighted until the Glazers debt was sorted. Which according to reports could happen as part of the sale.
 
Raoul said:
The Qataris are obviously going to message that they care about and will invest in all the issues various subsections of the fanbase care about as a means to assuage any anxieties, then once in charge slow roll change at their leisure and generally do the bare minimum to keep fans from revolting.
Click to expand...
So your assumptions based on your "own beliefs". Ignoring facts and evidens that both Qatar and SJR literally own clubs in the same league, one of them is the serial winner of the league and the other is swimming in mediocrity. OK!
 
NK86 said:
The sentiments are really strong in this thread mate. The bids have actually divided the fans badly, so another club's fan coming in and trying to make a post which will wind up one set of supporters isn't the best thing to do.
Click to expand...
That I see. Apologies in that case.
 
For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone who calls themselves a United fan can support American hedgefunds or Ratcliffe's bid. This would be the final nail in the coffin for us. We cannot take anymore debt and we certainly need a shitton of investment to catch up.
 
Elliott sounds awful, but at least if they bid for Ajax there wouldn’t be blood on the streets in Amsterdam.
 
Have we not got a poll on this? I would like to know who the majority of the fan base wants.
 
I wonder if persistent protestors like @Wumminator would prefer Elliot ahead of the Qataris.

Of course he'll probably say he wants neither but that'd just be a cop out. Obviously everyone will have a rank of preferences from good to bad. Let's hear it.
 
Giggsy13 said:
Strictly from a sporting project, the Qatari proposal is clearly superior and provides more of what the club needs than Ratcliffe. Of course the latter is a “local bid”. Probably been repeated hundreds of times already, no billionaire comes in with clean hands, from the Middle East or Europe. All or most are corrupt and could give two shits about being the authority on ethics and morals.

IMO Ratcliffe checks one important box for so many opposed to the Qatari bid: British. Let’s not pretend race doesn’t matter. If you evaluate each bid without knowing who made it, I’m certain many would presume that it was Ratcliffe who was creating the 92 fund with a commitment of investing billions around Old Trafford, investing in youth and redeveloping the area around the stadium. I mean of course it’s the local billionaire who would commit to such projects in Manchester not someone from Qatar.
Click to expand...
100%
 
clarkydaz said:
If the Glazers owned Ajax and were looking to sell you to Quatar, do you think they would give a shit about your 'blood on the streets'?
Click to expand...
TBH I do not have the knowledge about the Glazers other then you lot not liking them so I am probably way off my ski's here so I will repsectfully withdraw myself from the conversation.
 
Ineos bid doesn't mention investment in stadium redevelopment specifically and the mere thought of the Glazers having any remaining stake in us is a non starter for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.