Like Jim ever gave a shit about immigration or the NHS. As far as the rich are concerned, Brexit was about tax avoision and removing protections from workers. Immigration was just the card that was played to get the idiots on board.
INEOS and Jim Ratcliffe petrochemicals watch - "I'm certainly not very WOKE"
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-ineos-provincial-order-appeal-1.7209377
Drops over a billion on United but can't spare 50 million CDN to stop spreading benzene and making people sick. It's a carcinogen ffs.
Drops over a billion on United but can't spare 50 million CDN to stop spreading benzene and making people sick. It's a carcinogen ffs.
It depends, what is the color of their skin?
That is a terrible interviewer. Has no ability to guide a conversation.
Unfortunately we are co-owned by a massive knob.
He's a knob, but he's our knob.
If most owners did interviews you'd learn they are gobshites. Hopefully he keeps trying to reverse the Glazer damage.
Yeah the bloke's a bellend isn't he? Still if it's him or the Qataris or the Glazers...
He doesn't appear to have any redeeming qualities. In fact, he is such a predictable, clichéd villain that it's disappointing.
He says he's not woke!
The UK isn't densely populated. The bits you're allowed to build on are. Get rid of all the green belt, national parks, aonbs and we'd have no problem, but nobody wants that. We have been funding public infrastructure at a roughly similar rate to the other major European economies but our population is growing much faster than theirs and that population is not productive enough. End result of all this is what we have today, swathes of empty land surrounding tightly packed cities with chronically overstretched services.
Building permissions
Immigration
Productivity
We can choose which one of those we wish to fix, but we do need to fix one of them.
Many in Britain wouldn't sooner turf out anyone they don't like before they build a house on a daisy field.
I'm only semi-joking.
Don’t see here what makes him a knob? Much of what he says is pretty level headed and common sense. I’m not woke either it seems.
When you start to miss the Glazer's "not speaking to the media" approach it's not an encouraging sign for the future. I'm just hoping he becomes a figure like Martin Edwards - rarely interviewed but happy to attend private functions.
My glasses are squarer than that.
Harsh on yourself. (I wasn’t going to but you forced my hand
)His entire "critique" of government "when you're spending other people's money, don't be stupid" is about as skin deep of a critique as you can go. Furthermore, the economic system and usually conservative (sometimes labour) government set up those privitsation deals to specifically not hold companies accountable because "MUH FREE MARKET INNIT". It is the system he helped build and benefit from that he's railing against, but places the blame solely on "stupid government decisions". He uses the example of the water companies not keeping up with maintenance and seems absolutely baffled that a corporation may seek to completely gut and rent-seek the item they acquired for basically nothing? Wow whom would've thought that is a possibility?
Lastly he links immigration to a "population and services cap" of the country. The reason there is a "cap" on the services of an economy is down to the retreat of the state and the ascension of the private forces, again which is exactly what he benefited from. So when he links failing services to immigration, he doesn't go "we have really messed up the balance of state involvement in the economy which has gutted our ability to grow services to fit demand", he just bleats on about how stupid it is to let people in the country when everything is stuffed.
So a man that wants to simply call government stupid and tinge his comments with "those bloody immigrants ruining our services", and doesn't actually even contemplate what the retreat of the state meant to society, yeah I think he's a knob.
Last edited:
I think the opposite of everything you wrote
That's ok. I didn't think the interviewer was particularly good at guiding the conversation, they seemed too eager to ask questions based off the last thing he said. I would've preferred they dug deeper on the things he was saying.
Ah yes the interviewer can be shite. I thought you meant Jimmy, I think he interviews well.
The interviewer definitely left a lot on the table there. I think what he says is largely correct, but of course just surface level as you say.
We don't invest anywhere near enough in our infrastructure to cope with the levels of immigration allowed, and there are a ton of reasons for that linked to a ton of sticky problems.
I haven't liked some of the changes he's implemented at United since taking over but christ, am I glad we weren't bought out by the Qataris. When dealing with billionaires you have to pick your villain it seems, and I'd rather be owned by ultracapitalist brexit types than gravitating closer to City's disgusting attempt to undermine the rules of our game on the whole.
It is a tricky old situation. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could all just support a football club again, rather than this big money political nonsense that we've all found ourselves in lately?
I've become far more attached to my local league as a result, which is probably for the best I suppose.
His entire "critique" of government "when your spending other people's money, don't be stupid" is about as skin deep of a critique as you can go. Furthermore, the economic system and usually conservative (sometimes labour) government set up those privitsation deals to specifically not hold companies accountable because "MUH FREE MARKET INNIT". It is the system he helped build and benefit from that he's railing against, but places the blame solely on "stupid government decisions". He uses the example of the water companies not keeping up with maintenance and seems absolutely baffled that a corporation may seek to completely gut and rent-seek the item they acquired for basically nothing? Wow whom would've thought that is a possibility?
Lastly he links immigration to a "population and services cap" of the country. The reason there is a "cap" on the services of an economy is down to the retreat of the state and the ascension of the private forces, again which is exactly what he benefited from. So when he links failing services to immigration, he doesn't go "we have really messed up the balance of state involvement in the economy which has gutted our ability to grow services to fit demand", he just bleats on about how stupid it is to let people in the country when everything is stuffed.
So a man that wants to simply call government stupid and tinge his comments with "those bloody immigrants ruining our services", and doesn't actually even contemplate what the retreat of the state meant to society, yeah I think he's a knob.
Good post, most likely wasted on the recipient
Unfortunately, there's not much overlap in a Venn diagram of "people who are rich enough to buy United" and "people who aren't massive wankers".
It's why owners shouldn't do interviews. Abramovic never did them when he was at Chelsea and I don't think City's owners do them much either. If you found out what Premier League owners really thought you'd realise they aren't benevolent socialists.
What we want from Sir Jim as owner it to invest in the club.
Pretty rare for a businessman to categorically say a government should go. These feckers love to hedge their bets.
He's 100% certain the next government will do exactly what billionaires like him want.
That is the entire point of starmer.
I’m concerned about their marketing strategy. I’ve seen adverts for a luxury £80k rebadged jeep (the advert looks like Brailsford knocked it together on his MacBook because design is “his pashun”), and also adverts for Ineos washing up liquid.
What kind of company sells luxury cars and washing up liquid under the same brand.
What kind of company sells luxury cars and washing up liquid under the same brand.
It’s a rebadged Land Rover, not a Jeep. Far superior. Get it right.
Pains me to say it, but for the incredibly small target market they’re aiming that thing at, it’s seemingly actually very good.
All very weird. Same impulsive vibes as sacking Ashworth. What’s he at?
£3.64m for 3 years sounds like we're gearing up to splurge on another Dorgu in Summer