calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
When's the best guess as to this saga being over? Weeks? Months?
I agree with you. And this footballing heritage is a proud element of wider culture, both regionally, nationally and internationally. It’s epitomised by the pride and emotional connections between club, staff, players, ex players like Evra and Rio, Keano etc, and fans far and near. Do not sell out Manchester United.I’m pointing out what it was that made Manchester United a household name in the first place, i.e. what happened during the Busby era. That’s where the history, heritage, tradition, culture of the club that people often mention principally stems from. And state ownership conflicts with this. It will alter the identity of the club.
The sad thing about it all is that it’s completely unnecessary - United doesn’t need state ownership!
It’s a nation state. It’s sportswashing. It’s an embarrassment. It’s City, Newcastle and PSG and wanting to stay out of that company. Did you see the closing ceremony of the WC? Lionel Messi being treated like a cake decoration?You are wrong about that, I know season ticket holders who have been going for decades who would be happy with Sheikh Jassim taking over. Because why would it impact any of our history in any way?
Many would also strongly agree with you on the point that the Glazers haven't 'sullied' the club
I also don't really understand what about a Qatari owner is so much worse for you than the current US owners who the vast majority of fans want to see out of the club ASAP - you keep saying it's terrible but haven't explained why.
When's the best guess as to this saga being over? Weeks? Months?
Groovy. Thanks.The talk just before the deadline indicated that new owners should be in place before the end of the season
They should feck off
Didn't this happen with AC Milan where they got ownership because the previous owners couldn't pay up?What are the fine print terms for when the Glazers inevitably default? They get to repo the entire club? Of all the actors this has to by far be the worst. Glazers are looking for cash injection not more loans. They are too broke to meet the ones they already have.
What are the fine print terms for when the Glazers inevitably default? They get to repo the entire club? Of all the actors this has to by far be the worst. Glazers are looking for cash injection not more credit. They are too broke to meet the ones they already have. Elliott must already know this.
Leaving for a night shift feckin bored after reading pages of bollox about state backed or state funded.I personally can’t wait to be state owned, just so all this chatter can go and die in agony, western buffoons making moral mental gymnastics, just showing that they are kinda xenophobic. Who cares who owns us, be feking real, most of clubs are owned by the local mobster. But since he’s a local and not some foreign unknown entity, thats fine, he just killed a few people for legit reasons.
If anyone here started supporting a club because of its owners or even took it into account please do the society a solid and just stop following football.
p.s. I wanted Sir Jim for a long time, but if he can’t do it without a bank then rather someone who can.
i didnt even know they were going for full ownership?
these cnuts funding the glazers is my worst nightmare though
Don’t know about sharp. I remember the black banners in 2005. Glazers didn’t give a toss about it. They won’t give a toss about any reactions this time around either. It’s different with Al Thani and Radcliffe. Al Thani is out to conquer England by the pound, Radcliff is maybe after a memorial. I think a problem is that so many have longed for ousting the Glazers so long, it’s difficult to muster up a reaction about any potential bidders. Getting used to City winning the league every Year on 100 points must also have worn quite a few out. There is a big trend going on about ‘being moral’ and the polar opposite ‘not being moralistic’, which weakens people’s sense of what is moral to do, I think.You seem sharp. Do you think that while derailing it is likely impossible for fans with the present conditions (low class consciousness and learned helplessness, even after Murdoch), focusing on a key ethical demand or 2 in exchange for a non-boycott or whatever leverage can be organized is probably unlikely, but a more achievable ambition for the fans in here looking to organized in response to it?
That's my thinking, but I haven't really engaged a ton with this, it's too depressing to think about United in the same way I have to think about doing anti-poverty organizing, would rather think about football.
What has that got to do with the question I answered?Who do you think established those countries and gave free rein to the tribes they installed as rulers?
Glazers probably think someone is going to front them 1-2 billion and simply let them go back to running the club.
The Financial Times cant even confirm how much his dad is worth but here we have @Infra-red on Redcafe confidently giving a range that has been stated to very very conservative or his actual worth to many multiple times the reported figure.If true, does this mean that all of the advocates for a state takeover of United (because that's apparently the only way to compete with City and Newcastle long term) are no longer backing Jassim's bid?
While Jassim's father is a very wealthy man (net worth generally estimated between £1.3bn and £2bn), Jassim is one of fifteen children and has no significant net worth of his own, so it seems that even with his father's backing, a Jassim-led United will have no chance of matching the spending power of City/Newcastle/PSG. Does this not worry the Mbappe fans? Jim Ratcliffe is significantly wealthier than Jassim or his father, but will seemingly need to add debt to Ineos's balance sheet to help finance the United takeover.
Because you went on a sanctimonious rant and then asked an obvious question. Everyone understands what and who they are, but this line in the sand you're drawing is completely imaginary. Also for what its worth, the people who have died at the hand of the Qatari regime in the entirety of its reign are about a week's worth of Iraqi citizens killed in the U.S invasion. A life is a life regardless of if the regime sanctioning the killings is authoritarian or democratic. Scary buzzwords like "dictators" or "authoritarian" don't make their human rights violations worse than those of the U.S or Britain.What has that got to do with the question I answered?
Man United have doubled the size of what is effectively the club’s overdraft'
United’s annual accounts, which were released on Tuesday (21 February), show that the club actioned a £100million drawdown on a revolving credit facility on 3 October last year, taking the total drawdown to £200m.
Thak you, I've put him on ignore.The directors/board control a company, not the shareholders. A large shareholder with x% may do certain things sometimes (like call motions for vote, even appoint a director), but they cannot usually exercise direct control without >50%
How will it affect the club's name/identity? In what way?Those ‘guarantees’ mean very little for me because they come from a state and at the expense of the club’s name/identity.
As long as he/his father have enough to buy the club, clear all debts and improve the infrastructure that's fine, we can live on our own after that.If true, does this mean that all of the advocates for a state takeover of United (because that's apparently the only way to compete with City and Newcastle long term) are no longer backing Jassim's bid?
While Jassim's father is a very wealthy man (net worth generally estimated between £1.3bn and £2bn), Jassim is one of fifteen children and has no significant net worth of his own, so it seems that even with his father's backing, a Jassim-led United will have no chance of matching the spending power of City/Newcastle/PSG. Does this not worry the Mbappe fans? Jim Ratcliffe is significantly wealthier than Jassim or his father, but will seemingly need to add debt to Ineos's balance sheet to help finance the United takeover.
Thak you, I've put him on ignore.
Essentially they want to give someone - anyone - a Massive loan. Being it for a majority stake or for redevelopment etc.
The parasites will then eat us up. And for some reason, my instinct says, the Glazers would be happiest with this arrangement.
Essentially they want to give someone - anyone - a Massive loan. Being it for a majority stake or for redevelopment etc.
The parasites will then eat us up. And for some reason, my instinct says, the Glazers would be happiest with this arrangement.
Nah.
Our infrastructure is in shambles and the club is losing money. Meanwhile Chelsea are spending big money, Newcastle are set to do the same and we all know that if Qatar doesn't sign us then it will set its sight on someone else. We can't compete against that. Financially its time for the Glazers to go. They will probably threaten this nuclear option not to make them look as desperate sellers but that is all.
I am more worried about some new bidder whose stupid enough to sleep with Elliott just to make up the money needed to buy the club/rebuild the stadium. Which is why Qatari bid with its unlimited money is the most desirable.
I completely agree that it is time for Glazers to go.
My worry is that with this option of taking Elliott's money ol(more debt!), they will jump.on it. Maybe, Joel and Avaram to buy out the other Glazers and keep control on the club.
The f@-ed up thing about the situation is that no one ( fans, UK government, financial markets) have any mechanism to prevent this.
I completely agree that it is time for Glazers to go.
My worry is that with this option of taking Elliott's money on(more debt!), they will jump.on it. Maybe, Joel and Avaram to buy out the other Glazers and keep control on the club.
The f@-ed up thing about the situation is that no one ( fans, UK government, financial markets) have any mechanism to prevent this.
The concern is with the club being tainted by state ownership, not with whether you’re ‘distraught’ with winning trophies.
Joel and Avram can't afford losing control over their asset to Elliott else their money will be tied to something they have no control off. Thus the Glazers can only sell a minority stake that will keep their control over the asset. In such circumstances United do not generate enough money to keep itself competitive. Things will get sillier if they try to address the infrastructure issues as well. Arnold himself said that there's no guarantee that we'll have the money needed to spend in the summer.
This is a negotiating tactic from their part. Sellers don't want to look desperate when selling an asset else they risk to be lowballed.
I am more afraid of a consortium being desperate enough to go in bed with Elliott so they could gather the necessary funds to buy United.
The only option is to give them a price that they can't refuse. Something that makes no investment sense.
Says the man who founded a public companyI said the same thing in my post
I guess you just have to ignore my post to continue in your fantasy world
Says the man who founded a public company