Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I keep reading so much what the Qataris would do if they were succesful in the takeover... but is that of any interest to Glazers?
If I'm selling my car and I get two bids for it. One says he'll pay 15000 and he's gonna use it as a fun project where he's gonna go off road racing. The other bid is 13000 but he says he's gonna take good care of it, change oil and filters on a yearly basis and so on

Why would I care what happens when I sell it? I'd rather have 15000 in my bank account than 13000...

So can someone inform me if there's any sort of interest to the Glazers to listen to the promises stated by the bidders?
 
I keep reading so much what the Qataris would do if they were succesful in the takeover... but is that of any interest to Glazers?
If I'm selling my car and I get two bids for it. One says he'll pay 15000 and he's gonna use it as a fun project where he's gonna go off road racing. The other bid is 13000 but he says he's gonna take good care of it, change oil and filters on a yearly basis and so on

Why would I care what happens when I sell it? I'd rather have 15000 in my bank account than 13000...

So can someone inform me if there's any sort of interest to the Glazers to listen to the promises stated by the bidders?
I think that's PR for the fans.
 
This should be the job of the CEO, Richard Arnold. There have been complaints in the past that United have too many reporting lines, and there for slow, cumbersome decisions are made.

We need to streamline the reporting lines so we can be more agile and nimble in negotiations.

We’ve done that recently. I think we’d just need someone to report to the owners that they are familiar with. Without ruining the manager director relationship we currently have.

Just me though.
 
The SJR ownership for me would be no different than the Glazers staying. The main benefit of selling the club was the hope that the debt would be cleared, which should help make the club competitive without the need of any added investment. If SJR gets the club and keeps the debt, what has changed exactly here? And of course since he won't be buying the club fully, any additional investment in the stadium will be through additional debt.

That’s nonsense in fairness, the biggest company the Glazers owned my Manchester United, and it therefore had to pay for itself, and then some!!!
INEOS absolutely dwarfs United so it’s not remotely comparable.
 
That’s nonsense in fairness, the biggest company the Glazers owned my Manchester United, and it therefore had to pay for itself, and then some!!!
INEOS absolutely dwarfs United so it’s not remotely comparable.

If ineos is so great than surely it can tank all the debt? Also how had nice/Lausanne faired with such juggernaut at its side? How many trophies has they won?
 
That’s nonsense in fairness, the biggest company the Glazers owned my Manchester United, and it therefore had to pay for itself, and then some!!!
INEOS absolutely dwarfs United so it’s not remotely comparable.

But they're keeping the debt so what difference does it make if they're richer than the Glazers or not?

The fact that they won't have full ownership of the club means that no additional investment will be added. So again I'm asking how will it be any different? And why are people so confident that they won't be taking any dividends?
 
I’ve read that article before I posted because I wasn’t sure at that point who Moody was. That’s 6 messages and it seems unclear to me who was sending what out of the two idiots.
Whether he was a success or not, your initial post was about Ratcliffe hiring Moody after his racist and homophonic background and was intended to discredit him personally - interesting that you didn’t say INEOS but SJR specifically. But you’ve made my point for me here - it’s a purely business decision. I don’t think it discredits SJR or INeOS as much as you want it to.
Looking at those messages I fail to see why it doesn’t discredit JR. Certainly a question mark over his decision making when it comes to the football side
 
Your tracking back and deflecting doesn't constitute "explaining" anything. Might want to be a little more informed next time before making silly remarks.

Huh? I was asking you to read back a bit for context so you could understand my point.

I said illegal by mistake, it should be described more like "forbidden" or extremely difficult, or something like that. But really, it doesn't matter.
 
It’s a really delicate and interesting position the women’s team would be put in, and I’m sure some will take a moral objection and leave but thats okay cos we only care about the men’s team, right?
Have there been any issues with City’s Women’s team?

Funnily enough the Qatari bid mentions the women’s team.
 
Have there been any issues with City’s Women’s team?

They’ve become one of the best and well paid teams in the league. Get the impression the women’s team won’t mind as they will get paid more.

The Glazers on the other hand when they came disbanded the women’s team and then only bought one into the WSL after some pressure 13 years later.
 
My point still stands. It would be foolish to get rid of anyone straight away.

However, we aren't privy to inside conversations. We don't know how and what is said between people. Arnold could be a complete bell e*d and not fit in with the vision of the new owners.

But for me, the current set up is working. It could be the fact that EtH is masking the issues behind the scenes, however, I like how Arnold is running the club up to this point. I like what I hear from him and I like what I hear about him (from social media, etc).

Hopefully, the new owners have a 90 days review of things and see what's what. I'd at least give them this summer transfer window.

Ps, my ultimate set up has always been to appoint Edwin as CEO and Paul Mitchell ,or Michael Edwards, as DoF. However, I believe the current set up should be given a chance.

I do like that set up but pretty sure the Qatari's said that anyone already at the club will get the chance to prove themselves
 
They’ve become one of the best and well paid teams in the league. Get the impression the women’s team won’t mind as they will get paid more.

The Glazers on the other hand when they came disbanded the women’s team and then only bought one into the WSL after some pressure 13 years later.

And are currently on half the budget of City, Arsenal and Chelsea.
 
Huh? I was asking you to read back a bit for context so you could understand my point.

I said illegal by mistake, it should be described more like "forbidden" or extremely difficult, or something like that. But really, it doesn't matter.

Ofcourse there's a difference. Legality is a matter of a law, and you got it wrong, because you had no clue what you were talking about. You can keep scrambling if you'd like.
 
:lol: add to that the poster had been going for a day or two

His last few replies have been funny. It's amusing to watch people so intransigently double down, or deflect, rather than simply say they were uninformed. It's always a "but I mean x. Context mate. What I meant was..." before attempting to misrepresent what they originally said, which was just wrong.
 
My point still stands. It would be foolish to get rid of anyone straight away.

However, we aren't privy to inside conversations. We don't know how and what is said between people. Arnold could be a complete bell e*d and not fit in with the vision of the new owners.

But for me, the current set up is working. It could be the fact that EtH is masking the issues behind the scenes, however, I like how Arnold is running the club up to this point. I like what I hear from him and I like what I hear about him (from social media, etc).

Hopefully, the new owners have a 90 days review of things and see what's what. I'd at least give them this summer transfer window.

Ps, my ultimate set up has always been to appoint Edwin as CEO and Paul Mitchell ,or Michael Edwards, as DoF. However, I believe the current set up should be given a chance.

The whole reason club is being sold is because it’s been run poorly, club has fallen behind commercially, fallen behind on the pitch and losing millions a month. Arnold has been part of that for years, so have numerous others so a lot of them will be very fortunate to stay.

When the Glazers took us over they took over a successful business with employees who had a track record of success to point to, same can’t be said for many of the current ones

I doubt they’ll be wholesale changes straight away because of the likely timing of the takeover but within first year I’d expect a big turnover. We haven’t been run like a football club under the Glazers, no emphasis on growth or ambition just servicing the Glazers interests. If someone comes in and changes all that there is very little incentive to keep a lot of the senior staff.
 
His last few replies have been funny. It's amusing to watch people so intransigently double down, or deflect, rather than simply say they were uninformed. It's always a "but I mean x. Context mate. What I meant was..." before attempting to misrepresent what they originally said, which was just wrong.

I actually acknowledged I made a mistake very clearly. I've since been trying to explain what my point was but you're not interested in listening, so let's move on.
 
Are you comparing Gandhi's actions to you and others continuously regurtitaing the same points for the last 700 page? Will your posting on something you have literally no control over change anything unless you plan on taking action? Are you planning to give up on following United if Qatar takes over or will you go to OT with banners and lead protests for these now or later?

By now it should be clear that opinions held by individual posters cannot be changed, so what's the point in discussing this nonstop and derailing the thread?

Think there's another thread around morality where these posts can be taken. In fact why wait on United being taken over to discuss this in the takeover thread, create a thread to discuss this amongst other stuff happening all over the world.
Firstly it is not derailing the thread. Ridiculous claim. It is very relevant to discuss comparative actions of our potential owners.

To answer your 3 pretty silly and leading questions.

No.
Possibly.
Possibly.

Feel better?
 
Look how far that got us. There is very little you can do when the cat is out the bag.
You mean the recent protests, game cancellations and star player speaking out against the owners in a worldwide broadcasted interview? Which happened within 12 months of the owners deciding to sell?

Ok im being too scathing. Maybe you're right. But if you look at history, most action starts with a discussion. Regardless of timelines to the final conclusion.
 
No thanks. Can’t stand any of them pre scripted Paddock fools.

I only just about like Howson again thanks to Rio.
So you have formed a strong opinion about something you haven't even bothered to watch. Then decided to post about it. Classic.

Maybe you need to be pre scripted. :)
 
If ineos is so great than surely it can tank all the debt? Also how had nice/Lausanne faired with such juggernaut at its side? How many trophies has they won?

Nice are still currently the second most form team in France over the past 10 games, the nothing Swiss team looks likely to gain promotion. Amazon just took a massive loan, no none state entity just ”tanks” all debt to please numpties on tinternet.

Regardless, none of that has f-all to do with my post, which stated that being owned by a giant corporation like INEOS that can easily maintain billions in loans without United’s help, is nothing like the Glazers, who couldn’t and therefore had no choice but to make the club pay for everything.
 
Last edited:
Has this happened at PSG and Man City?
Never and it's abject fantasy thinking it'll happen with ours but what would this thread be with unrealistic hypotheticals and hyperbole involving the big bad Qatari’s?
 
You mean the recent protests, game cancellations and star player speaking out against the owners in a worldwide broadcasted interview? Which happened within 12 months of the owners deciding to sell?

Ok im being too scathing. Maybe you're right. But if you look at history, most action starts with a discussion. Regardless of timelines to the final conclusion.
I don't think the protests or CRY37's interview with the worst person in British media had anything to do with Glazers' decision to sell.
Chelsea's sale is the main reason + our precarious cashflow state are the real reasons, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.