Glazers / Woodward out! (One down)

So Chelsea get their club forcibly removed by the government with an anti-Glazers clause built in.

That’s therefore admitting that theGlazers are unethical, unfit people to own a football club.

So why is there no intervention on them? Wasn’t there supposed to be some enquiry after the super league debacle?
 
I’m loving my life said:
So Chelsea get their club forcibly removed by the government with an anti-Glazers clause built in.

That’s therefore admitting that theGlazers are unethical, unfit people to own a football club.

So why is there no intervention on them? Wasn’t there supposed to be some enquiry after the super league debacle?
Click to expand...

Huh? What anti-Glazer clause? In what way are the Glazers unethical?
 
I’m loving my life said:
So Chelsea get their club forcibly removed by the government with an anti-Glazers clause built in.

That’s therefore admitting that theGlazers are unethical, unfit people to own a football club.

So why is there no intervention on them? Wasn’t there supposed to be some enquiry after the super league debacle?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Surely it underlines how the glazers are not ‘fit and proper’ owners and should be forced to sell.
maybe Jim ratcliffes Chelsea bid was a carrot for them to consider?
 
The parasites have to go, but why has no one come forward to put in a proper bid to take the club off them?
 
Glazers out is a fantasy and it isn’t productive to keep going on about it. Just my opinion. They aren’t going to sell and no one is going to buy, so what’s the point? It’s been shown at Liverpool that it can work with the right personnel.

If we get recruitment right, and it finally looks like we may be on the right track then we can challenge again under this ownership. Would it be better if they were gone? Of course, but just screaming Glazers out is childish and doesn’t achieve anything. You can’t force them to sell and all it does is give the team an out when it isn’t going well.
 
The Irish Connection said:
Exactly. Surely it underlines how the glazers are not ‘fit and proper’ owners and should be forced to sell.
maybe Jim ratcliffes Chelsea bid was a carrot for them to consider?
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting theory and it would be a good tactical move if it were true

Unfortunately it probably wasn’t
 
lex talionis said:
The parasites have to go, but why has no one come forward to put in a proper bid to take the club off them?
Click to expand...

Because the price they demand is insane when the club is already half a billion in depth and in desperate need of grounds renovation and squad rebuild. No one is buying this club anytime soon if at all. It's not at all realistic.
 
I’m loving my life said:
So Chelsea get their club forcibly removed by the government with an anti-Glazers clause built in.

That’s therefore admitting that theGlazers are unethical, unfit people to own a football club.

So why is there no intervention on them? Wasn’t there supposed to be some enquiry after the super league debacle?
Click to expand...
So true, they knew it all along but never stopped it. They did stop Murdoch with us as well who would have been fine. :( Could be some old happy FA people chuckling about our demise. Would not surprise me.
 
Totally sickens me that the Toy Story Puppet was able to cause so much damage for nearly a decade, just look at the quality players we have missed out in that time due to his bloody incompetence. Fabinho, Mane, Haaland, Kante, just to name a few
 
croadyman said:
Totally sickens me that the Toy Story Puppet was able to cause so much damage for nearly a decade, just look at the quality players we have missed out in that time due to his bloody incompetence. Fabinho, Mane, Haaland, Kante, just to name a few
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
croadyman said:
Totally sickens me that the Toy Story Puppet was able to cause so much damage for nearly a decade, just look at the quality players we have missed out in that time due to his bloody incompetence. Fabinho, Mane, Haaland, Kante, just to name a few
Click to expand...

Nah our ed had more swagger.
 
Lots of Jim Ratcliffe rumours circulating on Twitter at the moment, nothing substantial though
 
Someone on Twitter speculatively theorised that he’s using Ariel Investments as a cover to buy up Class A shares. I did find it weird how his appearance in the bidding race for Chelsea came up, knew he was late as feck and then went on television and said Manchester United wasn’t for sale.

And then you’ve got a bunch of Woodward cabal members leaving too, most if not all seem to have been buddied up with the Glazer family.
 
Lots of Ratcliffe talk. did think the 'Manchester United are not for sale' line while turning up far too late for the chelsea bud was a bit of an odd one, A tiny glimmer of light at the end of a 17 year tunnel?
 
Demaw said:
So true, they knew it all along but never stopped it. They did stop Murdoch with us as well who would have been fine. :( Could be some old happy FA people chuckling about our demise. Would not surprise me.
Click to expand...

Murdoch would absolutely not have been fine.

He's caused more problems in the world than many dictators.
 
If Sir Jim made a bid for United, I would be very hopeful.

If United can simply be owned by someone who'll let them spend their own money and be run like a football club again, they'd absolutely blow everyone else out the park in terms of appeal to the best players. They'd definitely win the league again quite soon too.
 
I've paid no attention to the Chelsea takeover, is their no debt going to be attached to the club going forward?
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
Click to expand...


I watched this earlier. The bit I'm still trying to figure out is, has Jim Ratcliffe used Michael Knighton to unite the fans, givem them hope and try to strong arm the Glazers to sell to Jim.

Or, has Joel used Michael Knighton to try and get the feelers out there, to see who would be willing to buy United but make it look as though Glazers are reluctant sellers, so they get top dollar?!

Still so unsure.
 
The club has split ownership with all Malcolms children. Are they going to also give their children small stakes in the club? It will lead to issues long term if all the glazer grandchildren aren't on the same page. I can see the club being sold (please god) soon.
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
Click to expand...

Good interview. Thanks for posting.
A bit of hope maybe? I thought the late Jim Ratcliffe chelsea bid was a bit odd given it was over the valuation and last minute. It seemed almost like dangling a carrot for the glazers.
Lets hope there are discussions happening behind the scenes.

Fans should use the interview, Michael Knighton and Ratcliffe in their protests going forward.
Also, the fan ownership scheme that they promised seems to have been forgotten about.
 
Nothings's going to happen, they know they have the golden goose and can let it continuously milk it without doing anything.

Kudos to them for getting in before most others in the current sports boom, just a shame though it couldn't have been someone like John Henry at Liverpool, that guy knows how to build operational excellence at sports teams.
 
To this day I'm really surprised we haven't seen someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos plunk down the puny $5 billion or so it would take to buy United off the Glazers.
 
We are not getting rid of these leeches. Why would they sell? 0 investment on their side and 1 billion and counting in return. And who is going to buy for the price they ask and with 500 million in debt? The club is going to be passed down like a heirloom. It's why I'm skeptical about any change as long as these bastards are owners.
 
lex talionis said:
To this day I'm really surprised we haven't seen someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos plunk down the puny $5 billion or so it would take to buy United off the Glazers.
Click to expand...

But why would they buy United? Instead of making investments that would make them more money?
 
Telsim said:
We are not getting rid of these leeches. Why would they sell? 0 investment on their side and 1 billion and counting in return. And who is going to buy for the price they ask and with 500 million in debt? The club is going to be passed down like a heirloom. It's why I'm skeptical about any change as long as these bastards are owners.
Click to expand...
to be fair though, the Chelsea sale has shown that there are plenty of interested parties out there.
 
The Irish Connection said:
to be fair though, the Chelsea sale has shown that there are plenty of interested parties out there.
Click to expand...
What the Chelsea sale has shown is a United fan who is also a billionaire (not many of those) is more willing to aim for Chelsea than us because the Glazers would make the transaction so difficult/expensive.

Granted, Radcliffe is also a scumbag and a hypocrite but what billionaire isn't?
 
Cassidy said:
But why would they buy United? Instead of making investments that would make them more money?
Click to expand...

Vanity project, as it is for others multibillionaires. Abramovich no doubt could have made a lot more money from investing whatever he put into Chelsea into something else, such as Amazon stock or real estate.

The Glazers themselves would have made a lot more money than they did had they put invested in Amazon in 2006 or whenever the acquired United. One could have bought Amazon for about $30 a share in 2006. Even after the beating it's taken recently Amazon is at $2100 a share today. Perhaps it takes a special financial mind to know in 2006 that Amazon would become what it has become, but it's not the only tech company -- or non-tech company -- that has made billionaires out of millionaires. The Glazers acquired United as an investment, but vanity has a lot to do with it at all. If you're only seeking to maximize your dollar invested, buying a club like United wouldn't be at the top of one's list of investment options. Which may answer my own question as to why Musk and Bezos have not acquired United, but then again they're way beyond rich and love vanity projects at this stage.
 
Jamie Jackson, the Guardian hack, has said recently on a radio prog ( probably Talksport breakfast, I can't remember ........ not the best platform, I know ) but he said that he had it on good authority that the club is now, and has always been, for sale, at an eye watering $10bn. He went on to say it is part of a longterm, forward facing, business, sports and media project which will represent something of a zenith where the Glazer's commercial ambitions are concerned.

Who would go near the club for that ridiculous amount, and how does this translate, in any practical sense, when making such a transaction possible, as they seem to be doing little more than running the "asset" down, looking to gain shorterm benefit from annual dividends, PR tropes about inclusivity & ownership, while patently ignoring the problems of fostering a potential sale with such an onerous debt ( unaddressed, I think, for the best part of a decade ) in play, and up until recently looking the other way where our stadium, training ground and wider infrastructural declines are concerned. No one, even the wet dream candidate embodied in the guise of a billionaire boyhood fan, would be doolally enough to go near this toxic mess.
 
Rightnr said:
What the Chelsea sale has shown is a United fan who is also a billionaire (not many of those) is more willing to aim for Chelsea than us because the Glazers would make the transaction so difficult/expensive.

Granted, Radcliffe is also a scumbag and a hypocrite but what billionaire isn't?
Click to expand...
That's simply being negative. A year ago there were so many people saying United would be impossible for someone to buy. What Chelsea showed us is that it's very possible that if we ever went on sale we would have many suitors, many of whom do not need to be like City's or PSG's.

It also proves the Glazers are not willing to sell at the moment ( well at least prior to this year)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.