Glazer Family Consider Selling? (Source unverified)

The Irish Connection said:
Potential owners out there:
Sir Jim Ratcliffe - bid over £4 billion for Chelsea
Malaysian Prince, Tunku Ismail, showed interest last year
Consortiums that showed interest in the Chelsea sale.
Red Knights consortium
Fan ownership
Class of 92
Click to expand...

Yeah - I suppose.

Fan ownership just isn't realistic at all.

Class of 92 don't have that kind of money (unless they become some sort of consortium, relying heavily on loans - and anyway, do we really want them to own United?).

Red Knights - yeah, again, consortium. Are they even a thing these days?

Anyway - point is that we, as fans, have pretty much zero influence over who ends up buying United if we all start boycotting our sponsors to a degree that would force the Glazers to sell.

In this dream scenario (if it were to be a dream scenario), the fans would have to be sure that the buyer was X and not Y, right?
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I think Ratcliffe doesn't fancy it, I was shocked to see he bid for Chealsea if that story was true. I am pretty sure he has talked about football clubs being a terrible investment previously.

Shame because he is minted.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. He wouldn’t have bid for Chelsea otherwise. He just seems to be put off by the Glazers giving no signs of wanting to sell, but I think if the fans really got together about pushing them out, he would show interest.
There could even be a joint bid of say 25% fan ownership and the rest from Ratcliffe.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yeah - I suppose.

Fan ownership just isn't realistic at all.

Class of 92 don't have that kind of money (unless they become some sort of consortium, relying heavily on loans - and anyway, do we really want them to own United?).

Red Knights - yeah, again, consortium. Are they even a thing these days?

Anyway - point is that we, as fans, have pretty much zero influence over who ends up buying United if we all start boycotting our sponsors to a degree that would force the Glazers to sell.

In this dream scenario (if it were to be a dream scenario), the fans would have to be sure that the buyer was X and not Y, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, but like another poster mentioned, they’re probably one of, if not the worst owners in football. There’s a fairly good chance that whoever took over would be better.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That's fair - I don't disagree with any of that.

I was 100% against the Glazer takeover and I still think that taking over a football club in that manner should've been illegal.

So, that's my personal history with regard to the Glazers.

I have even argued that the old plc might have evolved (in a positive way) if Uncle Malc had not bought the club - but that's another debate: the bottom line is that I was never happy with the takeover.

But none of this has any bearing on whether it would be good for United if the Glazers sold out here and now: the question is - obviously - who would buy us? Being "Glazers out" on principle back then is very different from being it now.

To be clear - back then it made 100% sense on principle (the principle being that nobody should be allowed to just purchase a football club that means so much to so many in a leveraged takeover), whereas now: what is the principle? Anyone but the Glazers? I'm sorry, but that does not make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
I agree with you entirely, both in terms of thinking their type of takeover should not be lawful and with the concerns around potential suitors should the football club become available. However, my initial response on this topic was purely to point out the interest was there from a number of parties when Chelsea were available, some bad, some good, some no doubt somewhere in the middle. Up until that happened and those bids became public, I very much thought the same as you in terms of "who would buy us?", I didn't think anyone out there would spend the ridiculous amount of money it would take for them to walk away until that happened - particularly when Radcliffe bid around £4bn. I don't subscribe to an anyone-but-Glazer type of thinking because ultimately while I sincerely dislike them, ethically they are quite clearly not anywhere near the level of certain other regimes that are allowed to own football clubs and I absolutely would not want to see United go down one of those pathways.
 
The Irish Connection said:
Yes, but like another poster mentioned, they’re probably one of, if not the worst owners in football. There’s a fairly good chance that whoever took over would be better.
Click to expand...

Possibly, yes - but that's influenced by our relatively horrible results since Fergie retired.

When Malc took over as owner, he was arguably a genius in terms of who he left to do the football business.

The latter is - obviously - the key.

You can't tell me that the Glazer ownership - as such, as a model - would have been detrimental to success for United if a) Woodward had been replaced with a competent person, b) a good DOF had been hired, c) and subsequently a string of competent (relative to the level) managers (or head coaches) had been identified by said DOF?

I mean - the money has always been there (since Fergie retired)? We have pissed it away, horribly - but that really has nothing to do with the owners.

You can identify the Glazers as the main culprits here - of course. But then what you're actually accusing them of is poor recruitment - as in, they should have sacked Woodward. And they should have - yes.

But the question is whether you can realistically expect an essentially hands-off owner to do that (when the money keeps rolling in - I mean, we all know they care feck all about the football as long as the asset as such keeps generating money).
 
Last edited:
Chesterlestreet said:
Posting a strawman, then accusing another poster (who didn't) of doing the same.
Click to expand...
My point was intentionally made as a straw man to make it obvious how dumb his post was.

Thinking of that kind is literally what mediocrity looks like. Let's not shake the boat because we might sink while the lack of maintenance will sink us sooner or later anyway
 
Rightnr said:
My point was intentionally made as a straw man to make it obvious how dumb his post was.

Thinking of that kind is literally what mediocrity looks like. Let's not shake the boat because we might sink while the lack of maintenance will sink us sooner or later anyway
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay, fair enough.

It didn't work as a - say - rhetorical device, then.
 
Rightnr said:
My point was intentionally made as a straw man to make it obvious how dumb his post was.

Thinking of that kind is literally what mediocrity looks like. Let's not shake the boat because we might sink while the lack of maintenance will sink us sooner or later anyway
Click to expand...
The difference is everywhere you look you see holes. I see people working on our issues and I'm giving the time that it takes to do it. Weren't you one of the biggest Ralf stans? How did that work out? I'll tell you how... shit, it worked out shit mate.
 
afrocentricity said:
The difference is everywhere you look you see holes. I see people working on our issues and I'm giving the time that it takes to do it. Weren't you one of the biggest Ralf stans? How did that work out? I'll tell you how... shit, it worked out shit mate.
Click to expand...
Hm, I was a big fan of him doing the work behind the scenes. Plus, I'm not getting a six-figure salary to hire managers of football clubs, so your embarrassing point here is worthy of a primary school debate.

As for people working hard on the issues, is this a joke? Murtough working 24/7 apparently means we overpay for an Ajax CB, miss out on Nunez, and are being held to ransom for another Ajax player because we've been frenkie-zoned for about 3 months now.

All the while, the club's facilities are pathetic and the Glazers have invested more in their boats/yachts than in our midfield over the past two years.
 
I saw that there was a protest before the game but can’t remember much hostility in the ground considering the ugly looking bean was there?

Any match goers can update on if there were many chants aimed at Avi?
 
JJ12 said:
I saw that there was a protest before the game but can’t remember much hostility in the ground considering the ugly looking bean was there?

Any match goers can update on if there were many chants aimed at Avi?
Click to expand...

There were 40 minutes of protests outside the ground, a couple of thousand people. We missed the kick off as a result.

'Joel Glazer's gonna die' and 'We want Glazers out' were sung multiple times in the stadium too, especially after the first goal went in.
 
Why would they sell the club right now? They wouldn’t get anywhere near the price that they would want due to the current inflation and uncertainty in the markets. Who would want to but a shitshow like this lot in a falling down stadium. They only plus side is the revenue generated worldwide is almost guaranteed but than than that, it’s pants.
 
Offsideagain said:
Why would they sell the club right now? They wouldn’t get anywhere near the price that they would want due to the current inflation and uncertainty in the markets. Who would want to but a shitshow like this lot in a falling down stadium. They only plus side is the revenue generated worldwide is almost guaranteed but than than that, it’s pants.
Click to expand...

There is a chance that we will go lower than 6th this season and drop into mid table. The problems at the club are not necessarily quickly fixable even with a bigger transfer budget and a top coach. That would be a cue for the Glazers to get out. I doubt this is how it will go but it is a credible scenario.
 
There are arguments for both cases.

To sell:
- bad results
- huge rebuild needed on the pitch
- huge stadium investments needed
- teamviewer announced they're leaving
- fans are starting to be real fans and complain when shit hits the fan


To keep:
- they'll lose a shitload of money do to inflation
- they'll lose a shitload of money in club valuation
- there are no assets of value to sell and take the cash out (all our players are basically turds on massive money)


It's pretty obvious they will not sell, not a chance in the next 3-5 years.
 
youmeletsfly said:
There are arguments for both cases.

To sell:
- bad results
- huge rebuild needed on the pitch
- huge stadium investments needed
- teamviewer announced they're leaving
- fans are starting to be real fans and complain when shit hits the fan


To keep:
- they'll lose a shitload of money do to inflation
- they'll lose a shitload of money in club valuation
- there are no assets of value to sell and take the cash out (all our players are basically turds on massive money)


It's pretty obvious they will not sell, not a chance in the next 3-5 years.
Click to expand...

They will lose a lot more money if they let the fans get to the point where we're getting games cancelled and generally disrupting everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.