CallyRed
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 12,966
Hope you don’t take this the wrong way but you sound like king cnut.
I beg your pardon?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ca3e/9ca3e6d4f897eb666da8d04a07c00b2ecb9fac32" alt="LOL :lol: :lol:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ca3e/9ca3e6d4f897eb666da8d04a07c00b2ecb9fac32" alt="LOL :lol: :lol:"
Hope you don’t take this the wrong way but you sound like king cnut.
I beg your pardon?
Hope you don’t take this the wrong way but you sound like king cnut.
I beg your pardon?
King Cnut, sat on the seashore and tried to command the sea not to touch his feet, obviously the sea ignored him.
Feck meAhh never heard of him. Sounds a very powerful and knowledgeable individual. I understand the comparison now.
Both Messier1994 and SwedishRumble are aliases…
It’s my twitter.
I think that's PR for the fans.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?
That’s just silly and misinformed
Of course it would be different. They wouldn’t be taking money out of the club every year for a start!
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.
I think that's PR for the fans.
No. Your point was that it's illegal for Qatari women to marry men. You got that wrong. No need to keep deflecting.
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.
Hope you don’t take this the wrong way but you sound like king cnut.
read back a bit, I’m not explaining it again
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.
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 sideI’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.
No not at all, I’d rather the Glazers own us.
Your tracking back and deflecting doesn't constitute "explaining" anything. Might want to be a little more informed next time before making silly remarks.
Autocorrect or historical reference?
Either way it's a good point, well made.![]()
If it is autocorrect it shows how much he types that naughty word.
Have there been any issues with City’s Women’s team?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?
King Cnut, sat on the seashore and tried to command the sea not to touch his feet, obviously the sea ignored him.
Ahh never heard of him. Sounds a very powerful and knowledgeable individual. I understand the comparison now.
Has this happened at PSG and Man City?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?
If it is autocorrect it shows how much he types that naughty word.![]()
Have there been any issues with City’s Women’s team?
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.
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.
Nothing funnier than seeing people embarrassing themselves with ignorance and playing the "I don't want to dicuss this" card when corrected![]()
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.
add to that the poster had been going for a day or two
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.
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.
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.
Firstly it is not derailing the thread. Ridiculous claim. It is very relevant to discuss comparative actions of our potential owners.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.
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?Look how far that got us. There is very little you can do when the cat is out the bag.
So you have formed a strong opinion about something you haven't even bothered to watch. Then decided to post about it. Classic.No thanks. Can’t stand any of them pre scripted Paddock fools.
I only just about like Howson again thanks to Rio.
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?
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?Has this happened at PSG and Man City?
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.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.