Elliott/Glazers would be terrible but might actually be better than Glazers alone. Elliot would force Glazers to sell soon after, especially if Glazers cannot make some payment.Yeah I am super jittery but appreciating the other posters providing some reassurance. Last thing I want is an Elliott/Glazer alliance
Nothing to do with internal matters, rising treasury yields, poor earnings guidance etc.
They’ve always maintained that they were going to look at all options.Surely even the glazers haven’t the brass neck to do a u turn now and stay!
Call me crazy but it’s a tad hypocritical.
A person that has directly benefited from financial investment from ME money is criticising people that want the club to benefit financially from ME money.
It’s pretty comparable if you ask me.
Either he doesn’t want to turn down the financial benefits of his situation or he is too attached to where he lives to moves.
If it’s the first instance then he has no right to dig up old posts of others and shout at them on a forum. If it’s the second instance then he is shouting at people who are in the exact emotional situation as he was.
Morals just aren’t morals when you’re posting on a forum. Especially when he says it was out of his hands as if it separated te situation from this which is…out of our hands
You can’t lambast somebody for accepting oil money at United that they aren’t even receiving themselves when you are actually pocketing the benefits of oil money yourself.
It’s not even being that harsh.
I don’t really want talk about someone personal life to be but gentrification doesn’t happen overnight.You don't think it's hypocritical because you're crazy, but because it's convenient. You don't actually believe what you're saying.
People who don't want to benefit financially from gentrification need time machines. Have we reached the point where you need to be Doctor Who for thinking that Qatar owning United would be abhorrent?
Fair enough but they have let the media and fans believe that a sale was a strong possibility knowing how the majority of fans feel about their ownership. It’s not going to go down well after teasing everyone like that to suddenly say we have decided to stick around so just forget all of those dreams of a change you have been craving for over a decade.They’ve always maintained that they were going to look at all options.
Yes, I do believe what I’m saying.You don't think it's hypocritical because you're crazy, but because it's convenient. You don't actually believe what you're saying.
Tbf, they haven't given too much of a toss about the fans anyway, so they will continue to do what's best for their pockets. I think it'll all depend on the offer. If they can't get it within their valuation (5bn-6bn iirc) - i believe current offers are around 4,5bn, and they feel that with UCL income next season and some more sponsors/renewals on board, they could get that money in 12 months, they will pull the plug.Fair enough but they have let the media and fans believe that a sale was a strong possibility knowing how the majority of fans feel about their ownership. It’s not going to go down well after teasing everyone like that to suddenly say we have decided to stick around so just forget all of those dreams of a change you have been craving for over a decade.
I do not by the "might not sell" for one second. You don't bring in Raine Merchant Bank as FAs and waste everybody's time.
It’s not a factual statement, same as mine isn’t nonsense, in fact mine’s been stated repeatedly by many pundits/journalists. Like i said, relax.No one’s aggressive mate, it’s just not a factual statement
Yes but there has to be more than bluff to it, otherwise no one (including the stock market) would take it seriouslyclassic negotiating tactic to increase size of the bids
Those facilities are the same ones that ETH is working with. They are not state of the art in the City mould but let’s not pretend that they are archaic.
Instead of complaining ETH is getting the right people to do the right jobs and bringing the team together to achieve results. He is managing. Those ‘characters’ you mention all have giant egos in common and when those egos take a hit they look to blame the paintbrush and the paint instead of the the painter.
while I don’t disagree that the glazers are a hinderance to the club in every way long term, and I want them gone as much as the next guy, our lack of success has more to do with how the football side was being run than the lack of investment in any particular area.
No amount of investment will replicate what happened under Fergie. Living in the past is silly. I will just look forward to being in the mix again at the tail end of every season.
Well that's what the Elliot option is. It's giving them weight, but they aren't actually going to take it.Yes but there has to be more than bluff to it, otherwise no one (including the stock market) would take it seriously
Well that's what the Elliot option is. It's giving them weight, but they aren't actually going to take it.
Think to yourself why they're in this position in the first place, they've realised it's time to go. They just want to milk it for every penny possible, but right now they're not reaching 6 billion like they want.
I do not see how they can use Elliot’s money to buy their siblings. It is just too much money, the debt would be not sustainable.They will use the Elliot money to buy out their siblings. They also know that failing to pay the loan shark rates to Elliot could force them to hand the club over to them ala AC Milan. But maybe not before selling off parts of the United land bank and OT itself?
Just curious, who would they sell the stadium to? Would we then have to pay rent? Could it also mean it could be like having a dodgy landlord who will not make any necessary improvements or repairs? For the ones who think the stadium is fine as it is, this could be a nightmare.I do not see how they can use Elliot’s money to buy their siblings. It is just too much money, the debt would be not sustainable.
Unless it is part debt, part minority stake for Elliot.
In any case, if Elliot is involved, it will be the end of Glazers at United, cause the moment they will start missing payments (which they will), Elliot is gonna look to replace them. However, they can do a massive damage in meantime. As you said, selling the stadium could be on the card cause Elliot doesn’t give a feck about ethics of doing so.
How does that make any sense though? They already own the club, why will buying out their siblings make any difference?They will use the Elliot money to buy out their siblings. They also know that failing to pay the loan shark rates to Elliot could force them to hand the club over to them ala AC Milan. But maybe not before selling off parts of the United land bank and OT itself?
But do you really believe that the son of the ex PM of Qatar and head of it's national bank isn't linked to the state?A private Qatari individual with no hand in his government's persecution of gays or other human rights abuses I can get on board with
So you equate the actions of one man against one women with the actions of a whole state against tens of thousands of people?Edited with my meaning:
So perhaps that’s a win for the moral police - what I mean by this is that people who have a moral objection to Qatar ownership and are worried about their policies, this could be seen as a moralistic show of intent, that even if its due to a public profile issue, it still has the same outcome, someone accused of morally wrong doing would not be allowed back into the club even under their ownership.
What evidence or examples do you have of this? What fuels this opinion (other than the promise of oil/gas money)?I am of the opinion owning united would be important for reforms and changes in Qatar.
How does that make any sense though? They already own the club, why will buying out their siblings make any difference?
The Glazers are all about money, and taking a high interest loan is the worst of their options.
It's on the table and they're using it as leverage to squeeze more out of INEOS/Qatar.
His dad managed the Qatari Sovereign Wealth Fund for over a decade. If you're looking to convince people this isn't a state bid that aint it.
Just curious, who would they sell the stadium to? Would we then have to pay rent? Could it also mean it could be like having a dodgy landlord who will not make any necessary improvements or repairs? For the ones who think the stadium is fine as it is, this could be a nightmare.
Can’t they be linked but not actually state owned?But do you really believe that the son of the ex PM of Qatar and head of it's national bank isn't linked to the state?
That is what I am scared of. We need a new stadium ideally, not one that could fall even further into disrepair or we have to become a nomadic team with no fixed abode. Still think they will sell.Happened to Coventry. Then the ownership of their own stadium changed hands a few times.
For all we know they could be, he's up there with Genghis Khan.Can’t they be linked but not actually state owned?
If Boris Johnson’s offspring bought us would we be state owned?
I believe they’re all robbing bastards but can’t people on the outside be rich as well?
When Roman owned Chelsea did Russia own Chelsea? Were they state owned?
Am I asking too many questions?
Can’t they be linked but not actually state owned?
If Boris Johnson’s offspring bought us would we be state owned?
I believe they’re all robbing bastards but can’t people on the outside be rich as well?
When Roman owned Chelsea did Russia own Chelsea? Were they state owned?
Am I asking too many questions?
The Qatari’s along with Big Jim have made it to bootcamp. Judges houses will be interesting.Have the cnuts said when the next stage is yet?
You know something, a debate for elsewhere. Maybe we should abolish religion so people don't live their lives by something written thousands of years ago. That counts for all religions and there is intolerance in all of them.We have exhausted all the moral issue discussions after 400 pages. Now we are off to the 'linkage' discussion. So far, 30 pages.
On page 3,514 we will be debating if his moustache or facial hair is suitable as an owner of United.
That is what I am scared of. We need a new stadium ideally, not one that could fall even further into disrepair or we have to become a nomadic team with no fixed abode. Still think they will sell.
You know something, a debate for elsewhere. Maybe we should abolish religion so people don't live their lives by something written thousands of years ago.
If they sell the stadium they might have to ramp up their personal security. It will really p*** some off.I think they will sell. But you never know how greedy or deluded the two cnuts are. Think they can maximise the value by hanging on. If they think it will be 10billion in 10yrs time, why not borrow or sell the stadium?
It's not the same situation. Maybe the below will help answer your questions?Can’t they be linked but not actually state owned?
If Boris Johnson’s offspring bought us would we be state owned?
I believe they’re all robbing bastards but can’t people on the outside be rich as well?
When Roman owned Chelsea did Russia own Chelsea? Were they state owned?
Am I asking too many questions?
