Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

[Dan_F]

It was in his bid proposal that that the debt taken to purchase the club would be on Ineos. If Brexit Jim was fronting it himself why they hell would he need to be getting loans and putting that debt on Ineos? Because he can't afford it. Just like how his other 2 football clubs he owns have been run like absolute shite and he gives no money to. Guy isn't even paying down any of the debt the money sucking Glazers put on us but keep fooling yourself into thinking Brexit Jim is putting a single pound of his or Ineos' money into this. It's all coming from loans through Goldman Sachs and Ed Woodward's former employer and the one that helped the Glazers feck us JP Morgan.

Jesus Christ. Why on earth are you expecting people to be using their own finances to buy companies, it’s basic basic shit. You think Jassim is personally funding his bid?

Nice have been way outspending their historical transfer spends. What are you even talking about.

 

[Rood]

Are there any pro-Ratcliffe arguments as opposed to just anti-Jassim ones?

The second INEOS win Jassim is no longer relevant and you will then need to start looking at whatever the feck it is that INEOS intend to do with us, rather than how terrible it would be to be owned by Jassim. I’d like to hear more of this argument/discussion - rather than a 10 reasons I hate you letter for anything Qatari.

Interesting that no one has managed to come up with anything here - I supppose that reflects the voting in the original poll, I actually think it might be even stronger toward Sheikh Jassim if the poll was done again today due to opposition to the Ratcliffe deal which keeps the Glazers in

For the sake of a balanced argument - I suppose Jim has the following in his favour:
- Born in Manchester and apparently a Man Utd fan since young
- Some experience in football ownership

However, that Chelsea season ticket and poor performance of his other teams makes it debateable how much of a positive either of these factors are.

Personally, I prefer the Jassim bid for similar reasons you have mentioned but still I'd take Ratcliffe over the Glazers as Im ready for a change after a decade of poor decisions in the boardroom.

 

[Dan_F]

I haven't moved any goalposts, I've been saying exactly the same thing on here for months already

Once you do some research and understand the high profile roles Sheikh Jassim has had in financial institutions plus look at HBJ's history of investments then it's absolutely clear that they could do this deal privately

However I'm still open to the possibility of state involvement, it's actually you and those who are convinced it's a state deal who are closed minded to the possibilities despite the lack of evidence.

It feels very much like you are. In posts to others, you’re talking about HJB’s unmatched wealth, then when I challenge you on how dodgy that source of funding is, you tell me that I can’t prove it, but it could also be coming from an investment group. Then when I say that’s no different to American investment firms that no one wants, you tell me you’re open to it being state funded.

Its fine though, I think I have your stance down. You do not care about the source of the money or experience of the owner, you just want a new stadium and the debt cleared.

 

[Dan_F]

Are there any pro-Ratcliffe arguments as opposed to just anti-Jassim ones?

The second INEOS win Jassim is no longer relevant and you will then need to start looking at whatever the feck it is that INEOS intend to do with us, rather than how terrible it would be to be owned by Jassim. I’d like to hear more of this argument/discussion - rather than a 10 reasons I hate you letter for anything Qatari.

Actual experience of running football (and other sports) teams. We’d all love them to be a Brentford and be punching well above their weight, but they’re a midtable club that have been finishing mid table.

Easy links to two other European teams, which might help for loans of under 18s post brexit.

Clearly a good negotiator if he manages to out bid Qatar. And a very successful businessman. Unlike the Glazers.

They are unlikely to break any rules around spending, as we’ve seen with Nice they are working within FFP, meaning we’re not putting the clubs future at risk. Unlike some other state funded clubs.

 

[Appletonred]

In an ideal world we would have owners who make snow white look like hannibal lector, unfortunately no such owners exist, there's bound to be skeletons in the cupboard of many multi billionaires, however, from a football perspective and as a Utd fan for decades I want to see the club debt free, a fully functioning state of the art modern stadium, best in class training facilities, and the best players in the world wearing the red shirt at OT, if that type of owner genuinely has those ambitions and not taking dividends who can also invest in the local community then what is not to like, I get the clamour for Qatar, I really do.

 

[Rozay]

We need go be bought by UNICEF and plant a tree for every goal scored.

 

[stw2022]

The reality is the club will be run pretty much as it is under the Glazers under Ratcliffe; debt to service, run within our means, self-sufficient. Nothing necessarily wrong with any of that. But I also don't think it's what people had invisioned

 

[Rood]

It feels very much like you are. In posts to others, you’re talking about HJB’s unmatched wealth, then when I challenge you on how dodgy that source of funding is, you tell me that I can’t prove it, but it could also be coming from an investment group. Then when I say that’s no different to American investment firms that no one wants, you tell me you’re open to it being state funded.

Its fine though, I think I have your stance down. You do not care about the source of the money or experience of the owner, you just want a new stadium and the debt cleared.

That's because I'm open to all possibilities - Sheikh Jassim's putting together a consortium or using the family fund or a combo of both.
Plus I do understand that some would question if the state are involved but it's certainly not definite as some imply.

But yes ultimately I'm not too bothered about the source of money as both these billionaires come with baggage - more important is what any owner will bring to the table for the benefit of Man United and our fans

 

[JustinC00]

Jesus Christ. Why on earth are you expecting people to be using their own finances to buy companies, it’s basic basic shit. You think Jassim is personally funding his bid?

Nice have been way outspending their historical transfer spends. What are you even talking about.

Jassim is the only 1 out of the 2 that has said he would clear the current debt, pump money into the stadium and facilities and rid the Glazers. . If Ratcliffe and Ineos pledged to clear the debt and improve the stadium and facilities I wouldn't care if their bid kept the Glazers as minority stake. Jassim's bid takes the anchor around our neck off and let's our money making club to pump that money back into it instead of going back to debtors and shareholders.

With Ratcliffe there will be many more windows like January when we desperately needed to buy a CF and had to bring someone from Championship Burnley who was already on loan in Turkey. Look at our summer transfer already ETH desperate to bring in a GK but can't because we gotta spend on CF and MF. So it's gonna another season De Blunder's terrible passing. It was so frustrating to see Citeh's backup looking World Class playing it out while we got De Blunder just hoofing it long to the rate of less than 50%. He passed the ball more to Citeh in that than us.

 

[Berbaclass]

Prefer Qatar. Okay with either.

 

[Member 125352]

We need go be bought by UNICEF and plant a tree for every goal scored.

With Weghorst as nr 9!

 

[lex talionis]

Nothing is certain but I’m going to spend the next paragraph acting like it is.

Poor United, finishing in the top three, beating La Liga champions, wining a trophy, spending £250 million on players after coming off a horrendous season. Completely spoilt and embarrassing to read some of this stuff.

You misunderstand me. I appreciate the fact we won the league cup, went the FA Cup final and came in third in the PL. That's fantastic stuff.

However...at no point this season were we seriously ever in the hunt for the PL trophy. None whatsoever. This was a transition year for us so that's ok, but would not be ok is we looked at every upcoming PL season and said to ourselves "We have no shot at the PL trophy but maybe we can finish in the top four." and have that be good enough.

We have to compete for the PL trophy. I actually don't even care that much about the CL, although it would be great to win it. It's all about the PL, but if we can't challenge for the PL trophy we're pretty much fukked over as supporters while the owners -- Glazers or someone else -- feast at banquet.

 

[NLunited]

Yes and? Striving is different to feeling entitled and then throwing your toys out the pram because rich daddy isn’t coming in to save you. Even though Jim is a richer daddy than Jassim.

Sums it up really.

 

[Dan_F]

Jassim is the only 1 out of the 2 that has said he would clear the current debt, pump money into the stadium and facilities and rid the Glazers. . If Ratcliffe and Ineos pledged to clear the debt and improve the stadium and facilities I wouldn't care if their bid kept the Glazers as minority stake. Jassim's bid takes the anchor around our neck off and let's our money making club to pump that money back into it instead of going back to debtors and shareholders.

With Ratcliffe there will be many more windows like January when we desperately needed to buy a CF and had to bring someone from Championship Burnley who was already on loan in Turkey. Look at our summer transfer already ETH desperate to bring in a GK but can't because we gotta spend on CF and MF. So it's gonna another season De Blunder's terrible passing. It was so frustrating to see Citeh's backup looking World Class playing it out while we got De Blunder just hoofing it long to the rate of less than 50%. He passed the ball more to Citeh in that than us.

Why do you think we’d be scraping around for transfers under Jim? We can only spend a certain amount under FFP and we’re close to that limit now under the Glazers. We spent £250 million in the summer, how much more do you want? Nice are overspending their historical spends, so why are you so worried about Jim? Equating him to the Glazers is just…weird.

Your second paragraph hurt my brain. We need to be better at being a football club, not aimlessly chuck even more money at it. Jassim has zero experience in sport.

How much did a City’s class back up keeper cost? Please let me know all those millions they spent on him?

 

[Dan_F]

You misunderstand me. I appreciate the fact we won the league cup, went the FA Cup final and came in third in the PL. That's fantastic stuff.

However...at no point this season were we seriously ever in the hunt for the PL trophy. None whatsoever. This was a transition year for us so that's ok, but would not be ok is we looked at every upcoming PL season and said to ourselves "We have no shot at the PL trophy but maybe we can finish in the top four." and have that be good enough.

We have to compete for the PL trophy. I actually don't even care that much about the CL, although it would be great to win it. It's all about the PL, but if we can't challenge for the PL trophy we're pretty much fukked over as supporters while the owners -- Glazers or someone else -- feast at banquet.

But in what world should we have challenged a team that have been coached by Pep for years. Our squad is a mess, I don’t need to list all the problem, it simply can’t be fixed in one season. Pep finished fourth in his first season by comparison.

The reason we couldn’t challenge under the Glazers is Woodward. Simple as that, we’ve matched City’s transfer outlay. There’s nothing City have done that we couldn’t have done under the Glazers, they have fecked it majorly. All they had to do was appoint competent people in football positions and we would have won a lot in the last 10 years.

 

[Member 125352]

Changing owners won’t magically make us compete with City, Bayern or Real. From the looks of it the fanbase is divided regarding the 2 possible buyers, this does ‘t bode well for the future. Nobody has dared thinking of it yet but… we could be worse of as well than we are now.

In the end it all boils down to who will lead the club to the sportive heights we deserve? City has a lot of talent but not only on the pitch. Who will lead utd to glory? Splashing the cash will lead to nothing, it worked partly for PSG because the league isn’t very competitive but in the EPL it could very well lead to us becoming a 2nd chelsea.

I’m starting to think we won’t be seeing utd at the very top of European football for a very long time to come.

 

[RedDevilUnited369]

Sir Jim’s deal will still leave the Glazers with more power.

His shares will automatically turn to Class A shares leaving Glazers with 20% Class B shares which have 10 times the voting rights of Jimmy.

I prefer the SJ deal.

 

[9 Stone Elvis]

Sir Jim’s deal will still leave the Glazers with more power.

His shares will automatically turn to Class A shares leaving Glazers with 20% Class B shares which have 10 times the voting rights of Jimmy.

I prefer the SJ deal.

Thats not the case at all. The Glazer shares will be converted. Radcliffe isnt buying the club to have anything other than full control.

 

[RedDevilUnited369]

Thats not the case at all. The Glazer shares will be converted. Radcliffe isnt buying the club to have anything other than full control.

I saw this…

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I've been leaning towards Qatar, but apparently I voted for Ineos. Whichever results in the Glazers being run out of town on a rail, I'm for.

 

[RORY65]

I saw this…

They will have to work out the terms to change the structure of the shares but do you really think that he's spending several billion pounds for more than 50% of the club to have the Glazer's retain the power to make decisions?

 

[Dan_F]

Sir Jim’s deal will still leave the Glazers with more power.

His shares will automatically turn to Class A shares leaving Glazers with 20% Class B shares which have 10 times the voting rights of Jimmy.

I prefer the SJ deal.

I reckon he’s probably thought of that mate. Maybe someone could put you in touch so you could let him know he’s about to waste 5 bil.

 

[RedDevilUnited369]

They will have to work out the terms to change the structure of the shares but do you really think that he's spending several billion pounds for more than 50% of the club to have the Glazer's retain the power to make decisions?

I don’t know bro, I’m just going by what’s being reported.

 

[lex talionis]

But in what world should we have challenged a team that have been coached by Pep for years. Our squad is a mess, I don’t need to list all the problem, it simply can’t be fixed in one season. Pep finished fourth in his first season by comparison.

The reason we couldn’t challenge under the Glazers is Woodward. Simple as that, we’ve matched City’s transfer outlay. There’s nothing City have done that we couldn’t have done under the Glazers, they have fecked it majorly. All they had to do was appoint competent people in football positions and we would have won a lot in the last 10 years.

I think you still misunderstand me. There was no reasonable basis to believe we could have challenged Pep THIS season, even if the Glazers had sold the club to Jassim last July. I'm very happy with what we accomplished THIS season, which exceeded all realistic expectations.

What I'm saying is that if we go forward with Sir Jim we will have an owner who will not have the financial muscle to challenge for the title in the foreseeable future. That's not a "fact", but it is the most realistic expectation we could possibly hold. We will be outbid for the top talent, who will go to City and Newcastle, and we will do the best we can with the limited funds that Sir Jim will be able to spend. Under the guidance of ETH, who exceeded all expectations this season, we will compete for a top four spot but without a transfer warchest of any real size we will have to make do with players who are not on the radars of the biggest clubs in Europe.

 

[Rood]

I don’t know bro, I’m just going by what’s being reported.

That was released ages ago and it was nonsense then and out of date nonsense now

 

[Dan_F]

I think you still misunderstand me. There was no reasonable basis to believe we could have challenged Pep THIS season, even if the Glazers had sold the club to Jassim last July. I'm very happy with what we accomplished THIS season, which exceeded all realistic expectations.

What I'm saying is that if we go forward with Sir Jim we will have an owner who will not have the financial muscle to challenge for the title in the foreseeable future. That's not a "fact", but it is the most realistic expectation we could possibly hold. We will be outbid for the top talent, who will go to City and Newcastle, and we will do the best we can with the limited funds that Sir Jim will be able to spend. Under the guidance of ETH, who exceeded all expectations this season, we will compete for a top four spot but without a transfer warchest of any real size we will have to make do with players who are not on the radars of the biggest clubs in Europe.

I don’t agree at all. Recently we’ve signed Varane, we’ve signed Casemiro while being in the Europa League, Martinez is one of the top centre backs in the world. We haven’t been struggling to attract players in the slightest, not to mention we’re one of the absolute top payers in world football for wages and transfers fee. This while being under the Glazers.

I think you’re being really pessimistic, and quite frankly not seeing what’s right in front of you. We’re an absolute giant of a club, who even when being completely mis managed and under performing for a decade, can outbid and outpay every team in world football, bar the ones that cheat.

I just don’t see why you think suddenly Jim will come in and we’ll be outbid and living off scraps. If nothing else, he’s a good businessman and negotiator, I can’t see us having our pants pulled down continually.

 

[Ibrahimorich]

I reckon he’s probably thought of that mate. Maybe someone could put you in touch so you could let him know he’s about to waste 5 bil.

You couldn't make it up could you

 

[lex talionis]

I don’t agree at all. Recently we’ve signed Varane, we’ve signed Casemiro while being in the Europa League, Martinez is one of the top centre backs in the world. We haven’t been struggling to attract players in the slightest, not to mention we’re one of the absolute top payers in world football for wages and transfers fee. This while being under the Glazers.

I think you’re being really pessimistic, and quite frankly not seeing what’s right in front of you. We’re an absolute giant of a club, who even when being completely mis managed and under performing for a decade, can outbid and outpay every team in world football, bar the ones that cheat.

I just don’t see why you think suddenly Jim will come in and we’ll be outbid and living off scraps. If nothing else, he’s a good businessman and negotiator, I can’t see us having our pants pulled down continually.

We did bring in Casemiro and Martinez, evidence to support your case that we have in fact brought in some great players. But I submit to you, without going to the trouble of backing it up with hard evidence but we all know it's true, to bring in players we really needed over the last to go from decent top four club to a title challenger. One example alone will do -- Erling Haaland. True, we did bring in some top names that blew up in our faces - such as Pogba and Ronaldo.

The football world is changing right before our very eyes, arguably for the worse. There isn't a sentient being on the planet who would fail to acknowledge that but for City's unlimited it would be nowhere near the doorstep of a treble tomorrow evening. It is sad but it is what it is.

What makes City what it is isn't necessarily Pep's genius, although he is a genius, the club's financial ability to fund truly top players 2-3 deep at every position. If there's a problem with Jack Grealish, a 100m footballer, you simply bring on Phil Foden, who transfmarket lists at 110m. What that allows Pep to do is to force Jack to perform at peak otherwise he gets dropped. Pep could get rid of Jesus, more than a very decent footballer, and bring in Haaland. And should Haaland need time off, all Pep has to do is bring on Julian Alvarez, who's rated at 50m.

Evidence against my thesis is that we have at times spent poorly and I agree with that. But Pep has the luxury to bed in 100m players that we don't have the luxury of bedding in. If Grealish was poor, which he was, Pep had plenty of options to turn to. Sancho and Antony were middling at best but arguably poor this season, but ETH had little choice but to persevere with them. We literally had to turn to a loanee, Wout Weghorst, to solve the Ronaldo/Cavani/Martial problem, which would have been an unthinkable option for Pep.

At any rate, you make a good point about Sir Jim being a good businessman. The Glazers are good businessmen too. What I'm talking about results on the pitch, which is a very different matter. From what I've read, since Sir Jim took over Nice it appears the club has not been run well. Perhaps Sir Jim is raking in huge profits, proof of his business acumen, but fattening his wallet and the wallets of the Glazers is not my priority. My priority is a seeing a better brand of football in proper title challenges and the more we learn about Sir Jim's deal with the Glazers, the more it becomes clear that City will pull farther and farther away from us.

 

[Sanchez7]

I saw this…

Super voting shares aren't uncommon. Lot of founder led companies such as facebook have them so that founders can continue to retain control even if they don't own 50% of the shares

 

[Dan_F]

We did bring in Casemiro and Martinez, evidence to support your case that we have in fact brought in some great players. But I submit to you, without going to the trouble of backing it up with hard evidence but we all know it's true, to bring in players we really needed over the last to go from decent top four club to a title challenger. One example alone will do -- Erling Haaland. True, we did bring in some top names that blew up in our faces - such as Pogba and Ronaldo.

The football world is changing right before our very eyes, arguably for the worse. There isn't a sentient being on the planet who would fail to acknowledge that but for City's unlimited it would be nowhere near the doorstep of a treble tomorrow evening. It is sad but it is what it is.

What makes City what it is isn't necessarily Pep's genius, although he is a genius, the club's financial ability to fund truly top players 2-3 deep at every position. If there's a problem with Jack Grealish, a 100m footballer, you simply bring on Phil Foden, who transfmarket lists at 110m. What that allows Pep to do is to force Jack to perform at peak otherwise he gets dropped. Pep could get rid of Jesus, more than a very decent footballer, and bring in Haaland. And should Haaland need time off, all Pep has to do is bring on Julian Alvarez, who's rated at 50m.

Evidence against my thesis is that we have at times spent poorly and I agree with that. But Pep has the luxury to bed in 100m players that we don't have the luxury of bedding in. If Grealish was poor, which he was, Pep had plenty of options to turn to. Sancho and Antony were middling at best but arguably poor this season, but ETH had little choice but to persevere with them. We literally had to turn to a loanee, Wout Weghorst, to solve the Ronaldo/Cavani/Martial problem, which would have been an unthinkable option for Pep.

At any rate, you make a good point about Sir Jim being a good businessman. The Glazers are good businessmen too. What I'm talking about results on the pitch, which is a very different matter. From what I've read, since Sir Jim took over Nice it appears the club has not been run well. Perhaps Sir Jim is raking in huge profits, proof of his business acumen, but fattening his wallet and the wallets of the Glazers is not my priority. My priority is a seeing a better brand of football in proper title challenges and the more we learn about Sir Jim's deal with the Glazers, the more it becomes clear that City will pull farther and farther away from us.

Haaland could have signed for us at multiple points in his career. City didn’t out pay us, they were simply a far better package for him. And he made the right choice, look at what he’s winning and done this season, it’s insane. Are you really suggesting we couldn’t have paid that fee and given Haaland whatever he got paid in sign on fees and wages? We’re paying de Gea more than any striker in the world (probably)…money is not the issue. We were a complete mess last season and he had no interest in taking that risk.

I don’t really understand your points. We signed Sancho for a similar price as Grealish. We literally had an equivalent to Foden in Greenwood. Grealish also played more EPL minutes than Sancho in their first seasons.

In the period of time that city signed Mahrez, Silva, Gundogan, Alverez, we’ve signed the likes of Sanchez, Lukaku, Bruno etc. our squad should be no different in depth, but it is because we constantly make horrid mistakes and are now on our 4th (maybe 5th) manager since Pep joined City. Again, money has not been our problem AT ALL.

 

[VP89]

I saw this…

Who is this zain guy, why is he randomly posted around here.

 

[lex talionis]

Haaland could have signed for us at multiple points in his career. City didn’t out pay us, they were simply a far better package for him. And he made the right choice, look at what he’s winning and done this season, it’s insane. Are you really suggesting we couldn’t have paid that fee and given Haaland whatever he got paid in sign on fees and wages? We’re paying de Gea more than any striker in the world (probably)…money is not the issue. We were a complete mess last season and he had no interest in taking that risk.

I don’t really understand your points. We signed Sancho for a similar price as Grealish. We literally had an equivalent to Foden in Greenwood. Grealish also played more EPL minutes than Sancho in their first seasons.

In the period of time that city signed Mahrez, Silva, Gundogan, Alverez, we’ve signed the likes of Sanchez, Lukaku, Bruno etc. our squad should be no different in depth, but it is because we constantly make horrid mistakes and are now on our 4th (maybe 5th) manager since Pep joined City. Again, money has not been our problem AT ALL.

As I recall the discussion at the time, Ole wanted Haaland but for whatever we either weren't able, or willing, to spend what it would have taken to bring him in when he was there for the bringing. The rest is history and of course he's lifting multiple trophies for a squad that's deeper at every position than ours is. I can't think of a single regular starter for us who would walk into their starting XI.

I can see I'm not making my points very well. United's squad is incredibly thin and some of that does have to do with poor judgment, and some of that has to do with bad luck, and some of that has to do with missing out on top players who other clubs outbid us for. It would not be fair to suggest, which I am not, that a lack of spending explains everything that has gone wrong for us over the last decade (signing "big name" managers like Van Gaal and Mourinho and then a club legend had a lot to do with it), but we have missed out on top players because partly because we are no longer seen as a proper footballing enterprise committed to success on the pitch above all else. Instead, we are seen as a branding operation that brings in top names like Sanchez, Ronaldo and Pogba off of whose names merchandise can be hawked and social media clicked. "Good business" by the Glazers no doubt-- who on a purely business level have been wildly successful -- but the quality of our performances on the pitch have suffered as a result of subordinating pitch performance to spreadsheet performance. It is the maniacal pursuit of generating revenue, which the Glazers have mastered and Sir Jim seeks to capitalize on, that have been our doom. There is nothing about Sir Jim's resume that suggests in any way a significant departure from how the Glazers have run the club over the last decade that concerns me. Nice's captain has flogged Sir Jim for not having a clue how to run a football club and that concerns me as well.

It's not enough to hope that Sir Jim runs the club better than the Glazers have. The point is that there in fact is no reason to believe he will run it any differently than how the club has been run. The club will continue to be, above all, a cash how for the new ownership structure of the club, which will still have the Glazers leeching off it, which is great for them but not so great for rubes like us who only want to see trophies lifted. The future has yet to be written, but based on the past and based on what we know right now, there is no reason to believe that Sir Jim will run the club differently than how the Glazers have run it, with bankers and other yes men, we can hope for the best...but we should expect more of the same for years to come.

 

[Red in STL]

As I recall the discussion at the time, Ole wanted Haaland but for whatever we either weren't able, or willing, to spend what it would have taken to bring him in when he was there for the bringing. The rest is history and of course he's lifting multiple trophies for a squad that's deeper at every position than ours is. I can't think of a single regular starter for us who would walk into their starting XI.

Ole did want him but it's quite clear that he was never coming no matter what we were offering, his Dad saw to that

 

[lex talionis]

Ole did want him but it's quite clear that he was never coming no matter what we were offering, his Dad saw to that

Why is that so clear? It may seem clear in hindsight, but at the time it seemed possible we could have brought Erling in.

I may be confusing my timeline, but it may well have been that at that time Martial and Greenwood were flying high, so there may not have been space in our squad for Haaland to develop into the player that he has become.

 

[croadyman]

Why is that so clear? It may seem clear in hindsight, but at the time it seemed possible we could have brought Erling in.

I may be confusing my timeline, but it may well have been that at that time Martial and Greenwood were flying high, so there may not have been space in our squad for Haaland to develop into the player that he has become.

Yeah I never get how someone who was working under Solskjaer at Molde did not end up here especially at such a cheap price

 

[Tarrou]

It's delusional to assume Ineos can't handle a debt that size. Just food for thought.

yeah they can obviously can handle it

 

[Grande]

Why is that so clear? It may seem clear in hindsight, but at the time it seemed possible we could have brought Erling in.

I may be confusing my timeline, but it may well have been that at that time Martial and Greenwood were flying high, so there may not have been space in our squad for Haaland to develop into the player that he has become.

He’s probably referring to the fact that Alfie Haaland is a dead stubborn ex-Man City player with a deep hatred for particularily Roy Keane and in general all things Man United, and hia son is photographed in several City-outfits during his kidhood.

 

[glazed]

The reason we couldn’t challenge under the Glazers is Woodward. Simple as that, we’ve matched City’s transfer outlay. There’s nothing City have done that we couldn’t have done under the Glazers, they have fecked it majorly. All they had to do was appoint competent people in football positions and we would have won a lot in the last 10 years.

This completely misses the point. You can prioritise commerce and marketing or you can prioritise football but not both. Signing Ronaldo sums this up. Woodward did the job he was put there to do quite brilliantly - it just wasn't the job we'd have liked him to do. To dismiss him as incompetent is to misunderstand the Glazers' agenda.

 

[Red in STL]

He’s probably referring to the fact that Alfie Haaland is a dead stubborn ex-Man City player with a deep hatred for particularily Roy Keane and in general all things Man United, and hia son is photographed in several City-outfits during his kidhood.

Exactly and he was, if I recall correctly, his agent as well

 

[spwd]

Can we have a recount? Wasn't this before the 7th Glazer appeared?