Sir Jim Ratcliffe: I want to buy Manchester United | Will make a bid for the club [Telegraph]

Sushi Kagawa said:
If Avram wants to sell then it's just Joel as the last obstacle
Click to expand...
Feking Goblin-boy. This jackoff has been trying and failing at playing billionaire owner. Atleast there are other siblings willing to sell, even Rat-tail. God forbid we endup with a gobsh*t like James Dolan (Knick’s owner) who actually looks for fights with their fans.
 
Last edited:
What would a realistic time frame for this cat (or someone else legitimate) to take control of the club? Multiple months? Years?
 
Whoever buys the club eventually will have to abide to the anti glazer law. Must have the funds and cant load debt onto the club, so by this alone any new owner will be better
 
calodo2003 said:
What would a realistic time frame for this cat (or someone else legitimate) to take control of the club? Multiple months? Years?
Click to expand...

If they accepted an offer today the due dillignace on a billion pound takeover would likely take months.
 
fezzerUTD said:
I read it ages ago. If it matters dig deeper. To me they are all the same any way so don’t care to.
Click to expand...

Just matters in the context, as I've read it was Joel who wanted the club. Ties in with him also wanting to keep it more than the other syballings, and him being more hands on.
 
Go feck up another NFL team or get some poor NBA franchise moved to Hawaii but please just go and leave us alone.
 
Tiber said:
If they accepted an offer today the due dillignace on a billion pound takeover would likely take months.
Click to expand...
It took boehly a matter of weeks didn't it? 8 Weeks max unless that completely flew under my radar and it was going on longer than I thought
 
UnitedSofa said:
It took boehly a matter of weeks didn't it? 8 Weeks max unless that completely flew under my radar and it was going on longer than I thought
Click to expand...

The paperwork might be fast tracked if the Glazers are linked to a fascist government which brutally invades another country and United are seized by the government
 
Mmxxii said:
I can't see anything in your comment that highlights how the Glazer ownership is distinctive from the Martin Edwards era. Why wasn't Old Trafford modernised prior to their takeover in 2005? What grand strategy lay behind responding to Arsenal invincibles and Jose's Chelsea cantering to league titles by signing Djemba Djemba (as Roy Keane's replacement!), Liam Miller, Alan Smith (the new Cantona apparently!) and Kleberson!

The club has long been a profit-maximising machine whose archaic set up was masked by Fergie's phenomenal management. Up until 2013 and 8 years after the Glazers too over, Utd were still successful on the pitch and there wasn't this fevered talk of Glazer's lack of "strategy" and "leadership." What changed in 2013, Fergie was gone and the common denominator behind the club's success was gone.

The Glazer's key error was seeking to replicate what worked under Fergie - appointing a "good" manager and trusting him, largely, with the player signings. As each manager proved unworthy, each successive new manager was faced with a squad of players that needed a clearout.

As for missing key signings, do you think we didn't miss out on key signings in the Edwards's era? Remember Alan Shearer in the 1990s, Zidane was also supposed to join us from Bordeaux in 1996. I remember feeling frustrated when we missed out on the South African captain, Mark Fish. In 2003, Harry Kewell left Leeds for Liverpool suggesting that United were going nowhere and he could win more trophies with Liverpool.

I think most are emoting about our present abject lack of footballing success and scrambling around for easy answers to which the Glazers present archetypal villains. We need to be clear exactly what and when things went wrong.

No one with enough financing to take over from the Glazers would do anything other than try and make a profit from their investment after making the hefty outlay to purchase the club. Utd is too big to be a City, Newcastle or Chelsea. So we can pretty much forget about having a benevolent owner who simply wants to see us win trophies. If it's about putting more investment in infrastructure, appointing a competent DOF (moving away from the Fergie era of the all powerful manager), and setting up a good scouting system, I am not sure you necessarily need a change of ownership to do all of that.
Click to expand...

Hard to take the rest of the post seriously after reading this part.
 
stevoc said:
Hard to take the rest of the post seriously after reading this part.
Click to expand...
I remember capacity being increased to take advantage of ticket demand which exceeded sales. Easily understandable commercial decision. In what way was Old Trafford at 21st century standards as of 2005? I suspect if ticket demand still exceeded sales to the same degree, the Glazers would be keen to expand capacity.

On player investment, the reality is that Utd was often outspent by rivals for most of the premier league history. It reportedly took Fergie's threat to resign in 1998 for the board to agree the investment that brought in Dwight Yorke and Jaap Stam. That happened to be the first time we outspent our rivals since the EPL started.

Some Martin Edward fans and historical revisionists now suggest the signings of Djemba Djemba, Liam Miller, Alan Smith, Kleberson, were well understood as part of a planned squad transition. This made me laugh! Here is a Guardian quote from one of the supporters' association justifying fans booing the team and Ferguson in 2005:

"What happened on Saturday was a build-up of ill feeling that has gone on for a long time," Johnny Flacks, the founding member of the Independent Manchester United Supporters' Association (Imusa), said last night. "The supporters have been accustomed to mediocrity for too long and this was the moment when they decided that enough was enough. You can argue whether it was good, bad or indifferent to boo the manager but what other option do supporters have to show their displeasure?

"The level of discontent at Old Trafford has reached proportions that I never thought it would and the great pity is that Ferguson does not deserve this when you look at what he has achieved in the past.

"It's just a shame he didn't leave after we had won the treble in 1999 or when he initially said he would retire [in 2002] because ever since then there have been serious levels of underachievement. Over the last four years some of his signings have been so questionable that you have to wonder whether he has even seen these players before buying them.
 
Last edited:
We won a game and now the fraudulent De Jong stories are done. If anyone is in doubt how badly and reactionary we're run, you only need to look at this example
 
Mmxxii said:
I remember capacity being increased to take advantage of ticket demand which exceeded sales. Easily understandable commercial decision. In what way was Old Trafford at 21st century standards as of 2005? I suspect if ticket demand still exceeded sales to the same degree, the Glazers would be keen to expand capacity.
Click to expand...

You seem to be asking why a stadium back in the early 2000's wasn't up to to what we now consider 21st century standards 2 decades later. In 2004/ 005 it was modern as obviously the majority of it was built in the late 20th century. Back then it had a 5 star UEFA rating and hosted CL finals, Internationals etc.

Circa 2004/05 which top club stadium was more modern or had undergone more recent development?

Anfield?
Highbury?
San Siro?
Nou Camp?
Bernabeu?
Stadio Delle Alpi?
 
Mmxxii said:
I remember capacity being increased to take advantage of ticket demand which exceeded sales. Easily understandable commercial decision. In what way was Old Trafford at 21st century standards as of 2005? I suspect if ticket demand still exceeded sales to the same degree, the Glazers would be keen to expand capacity.

On player investment, the reality is that Utd was often outspent by rivals for most of the premier league history. It reportedly took Fergie's threat to resign in 1998 for the board to agree the investment that brought in Dwight Yorke and Jaap Stam. That happened to be the first time we outspent our rivals since the EPL started.

Some Martin Edward fans and historical revisionists now suggest the signings of Djemba Djemba, Liam Miller, Alan Smith, Kleberson, were well understood as part of a planned squad transition. This made me laugh! Here is a Guardian quote from one of the supporters' association justifying fans booing the team and Ferguson in 2005:

"What happened on Saturday was a build-up of ill feeling that has gone on for a long time," Johnny Flacks, the founding member of the Independent Manchester United Supporters' Association (Imusa), said last night. "The supporters have been accustomed to mediocrity for too long and this was the moment when they decided that enough was enough. You can argue whether it was good, bad or indifferent to boo the manager but what other option do supporters have to show their displeasure?

"The level of discontent at Old Trafford has reached proportions that I never thought it would and the great pity is that Ferguson does not deserve this when you look at what he has achieved in the past.

"It's just a shame he didn't leave after we had won the treble in 1999 or when he initially said he would retire [in 2002] because ever since then there have been serious levels of underachievement. Over the last four years some of his signings have been so questionable that you have to wonder whether he has even seen these players before buying them.
Click to expand...

You are REALLY missing the bigger picture in regards to the Glazer ownership.

As a PLC, United had the best in class, in most of the positions to do their jobs. Busines people running the business, football people running the football operations.

Investments were made throughout the whole club. That Investment was nowhere near the same after the takeover. All we ever heard from SAF post 2005 was, "there's no value in the market", in regards to the player purchases. There was also no state of the art Investment in the stadium or training ground.

Had you ever been to Old Trafford in those years after the upgrades from the early 90's? For its time, it was a fantastic stadium. For the times it was up there with the best. To say anything else, suggeats to me you never went.

Like everything, things move on. Old Trafford hasn't.
 
stevoc said:
You seem to be asking why a stadium back in the early 2000's wasn't up to to what we now consider 21st century standards 2 decades later. In 2004/ 005 it was modern as obviously the majority of it was built in the late 20th century. Back then it had a 5 star UEFA rating and hosted CL finals, Internationals etc.

Circa 2004/05 which top club stadium was more modern or had undergone more recent development?

Anfield?
Highbury?
San Siro?
Nou Camp?
Bernabeu?
Stadio Delle Alpi?
Click to expand...
The early 2000s was a time of major stadium projects. Wembley and the Emirates come to mind. Our main domestic rival, Arsenal, started work on the Emirates in 2004 and completed this in 2006. You don't think Utd who were more profitable and more cash rich (with increasing dividend payments) could have modernised Old Trafford to keep up with Arsenal and get it to be at par with some of the then new stadium projects at the time?

You also don't think we deserved more than the likes of Djemba Djemba and Kleberson considering that for the vast majority of EPL history, we were outspent by our rivals in player investment?

Here is what I think. The club has been run for decades, going back long before Glazer, to maximize profit for the owners/shareholders. It's probably why Fergie was seemingly ambivalent about the Glazer takeover. Nothing fundamentally changed except the narrative fallacy most now subscribe to which seems to portray the pre-Glazer PLC as run by well-meaning fellow country men (not these bloody foreigners!) who wanted what's best for the club.

The retirement of Fergie and the influx of money into football from all sorts of characters/states has just exposed the constraints of our profit-first and owner-enrichment model. This club was long lost to commerce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan
Mmxxii said:
The early 2000s was a time of major stadium projects. Wembley and the Emirates come to mind. Our main domestic rival, Arsenal, started work on the Emirates in 2004 and completed this in 2006. You don't think Utd who were more profitable and more cash rich (with increasing dividend payments) could have modernised Old Trafford to keep up with Arsenal and get it to be at par with some of the then new stadium projects at the time?
Click to expand...

You seem to be having a hard time accepting that circa 2005 Old Trafford was modern. You are comparing it with two stadiums that hadn't seen development in decades and as a result had become so dilapidated that they to be demolished or abandoned. Old Trafford wasn't in that state back then it was still one of the best stadiums in Europe.

What did you want United to do demolish Old Trafford in 2005 and rebuild it despite spending fortunes the previous decade expanding and renovating it in 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000 & ironically 2005?
 
Last edited:
Rightnr said:
We won a game and now the fraudulent De Jong stories are done. If anyone is in doubt how badly and reactionary we're run, you only need to look at this example
Click to expand...
There was talk of if being done before the game too.

 
stevoc said:
You seem to be having a hard time accepting that circa 2005 Old Trafford was modern. You are comparing it with two stadiums that hadn't seen development in decades and as a result had become so dilapidated that they to be demolished or abandoned. Old Trafford wasn't in that state back then it was still one of the best stadiums in Europe.

What did you want United to do demolish Old Trafford in 2005 and rebuilt it despite spending fortunes the previous decade expanding and renovating it in 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000 & ironically 2005?
Click to expand...

His point is still valid, although I do agree that Glazers are another level of mega leeches
 
Rightnr said:
We won a game and now the fraudulent De Jong stories are done. If anyone is in doubt how badly and reactionary we're run, you only need to look at this example
Click to expand...

100 per cent.

A few days ago we were being linked with Meunier and Hakimi at right back. Today I read that Brandon Williams is seen as an option.

A few days ago we were still in for De Jong. Today I read its dead.

These Antony reports...Are they just blowing smoke or is it legit? I'm sceptical. Given how reactively we're run I wouldn't be surprised if it all depends on the Southampton result. Win and the Glazers feel the pressure is off and leave it. Lose and they panic and slap down £70-80m.

Its a shambles. There's no plan. The club is run tinpot. If we succeed this season it'll be because they lucked into some great transfers after lucking into Ten Hag. This wasn't some well orchestrated operation like what City did to prepare the way for Pep with Soriano and Begiristain coming in.

If we had owners who a) cared and b) knew how to run a company we'd be much better off. Instead we got a bunch of trust fund kids living off what their Dad gave them.
 
fishfingers15 said:
That the PLC was also geared towards making money for the shareholders more than funding money to the football club. I want to be absolutely clear though that the Glazers are tight old bastards who aren't good for the club and much more harmful than the old PLC.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure many disagree with a PLC paying there shareholders, especially when they're successful. However, we're no longer successful, and that is largely to do with the Glazers.

So, the bottom line is, Glazers need to go.
 
red thru&thru said:
I'm not too sure many disagree with a PLC paying there shareholders, especially when they're successful. However, we're no longer successful, and that is largely to do with the Glazers.

So, the bottom line is, Glazers need to go.
Click to expand...

We were successful under Glazers when Fergie was managing us. We are not successful due to a variety of reasons, one of them being Glazers. Managers and CEOs can be fired but owners can't be unless there is a revolution. I'm fully onboard with the protests and that Glazers should go. Think a manager like Ten Hag may be ultimately more important than ownership change for success, however.
 
fishfingers15 said:
We were successful under Glazers when Fergie was managing us. We are not successful due to a variety of reasons, one of them being Glazers. Managers and CEOs can be fired but owners can't be unless there is a revolution. I'm fully onboard with the protests and that Glazers should go. Think a manager like Ten Hag may be ultimately more important than ownership change for success, however.
Click to expand...
Until we need to change manager again and the shitty owners have not put the right structures in place to make sure it happens correctly.


Meanwhile the facilities will continue to rot due to lack of infrastructure development. And lack of commercial success and progress along with dividends and debt mean strengthening on the pitch vs our rivals becomes a struggle. Especially as we’ll continue to make expensive transfer mistakes because we have not bothered to bring in best in class above the manager on the footballing side.
 
Cassidy said:
Until we need to change manager again and the shitty owners have not put the right structures in place to make sure it happens correctly.


Meanwhile the facilities will continue to rot due to lack of infrastructure development.
Click to expand...
It's still a fair point. The Glazers don't necessarily prevent success. But they're also certainly not increasing the chances
 
fishfingers15 said:
We were successful under Glazers when Fergie was managing us. We are not successful due to a variety of reasons, one of them being Glazers. Managers and CEOs can be fired but owners can't be unless there is a revolution. I'm fully onboard with the protests and that Glazers should go. Think a manager like Ten Hag may be ultimately more important than ownership change for success, however.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is we didn't realise the ladder was burning from the bottom that no other would be able to follow in his steps until the Glazers are gone.
 
hellhunter said:
It's still a fair point. The Glazers don't necessarily prevent success. But they're also certainly not increasing the chances
Click to expand...
They prevent it by allowing incompetent people to run the club. That is their decision, if you are hiring people not fit for purpose you are the problem, especially when you do not remove them when they are continuously failing for years.

The second point is they are preventing it with their lack of investment in the clubs infrastructure and training facilities.
 
Cassidy said:
Until we need to change manager again and the shitty owners have not put the right structures in place to make sure it happens correctly.


Meanwhile the facilities will continue to rot due to lack of infrastructure development. And lack of commercial success and progress along with dividends and debt mean strengthening on the pitch vs our rivals becomes a struggle. Especially as we’ll continue to make expensive transfer mistakes because we have not bothered to bring in best in class above the manager on the footballing side.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you have said.
 
fishfingers15 said:
His point is still valid, although I do agree that Glazers are another level of mega leeches
Click to expand...

Which point exactly?

Go back 20 years and no one was calling for Old Trafford to be rebuilt/renovated/modernised it was considered one of the best stadiums in Europe. If that's his point it's nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.