Glazers to consider selling Manchester United? Official: Ratcliffe Acquires 25% of United shares

I don't understand your point, both are doing it for their own reasons. No billionaire is buying the club for love, whether it's a Qatari bank or Inios going on the shirt.

Or are you saying every rich Qatari has a say in their laws, and hates those laws they impose (as a banker) they buy a football club to point fingers in the other direction?

It makes no sense, if anything it points the fingers even more.

What power does this Sheikh have with regards to their laws?

The main point is, we as fans have no power about it. The Glazers will take the largest offer. Moaning about it or protesting about it won't change anything, it didn't with them.

So you either accept it, or do something about it, like stop supporting until you get the change you want, which is another billionaire, who destroys the planet, but that's ok, who cares about the planet.
 
Yes I probably would. I have already explained this to you, London is one of the worlds most influential business and financial hubs.
Corporate membership at London's most successful club makes perfect sense. Corporate entertainment is not dead you know.
Possibly you could tell us how many times Ratcliffe (not Radcliffe) actually watched Chelsea himself and who his company may have been when he was there?
Because those tickets from London to Manchester are bit too expensive for a billionaire.

Fans travel from around the world to watch their club, and the billionaire fan can't do it from London
 
Because those tickets from London to Manchester are bit too expensive for a billionaire.

Fans travel from around the world to watch their club, and the billionaire fan can't do it from London
Very few if any would have been actual fans as we know it!
 
Out of these two, it might be someone else, we have an English billionaire who trashes the planet, and a Qatari billionaire who comes from a country with awful human rights but isn't responsible for them.
I don't see your point unless you are against foreign ownership
In an ideal world I want neither, but I don't see much difference between the two.

This game on sounds like a cracker, so I'm off.
 
Out of these two, it might be someone else, we have an English billionaire who trashes the planet, and a Qatari billionaire who comes from a country with awful human rights but isn't responsible for them.
I don't see your point unless you are against foreign ownership
In an ideal world I want neither, but I don't see much difference between the two.

This game on sounds like a cracker, so I'm off.
Yea ok pal, a Qatari Sheikh banker, connected to Qatar royal family and the son of their ex Prime Minister over a local self made lad who will look to run the club properly and bring us back to being one of the worlds top clubs by traditional methods. That is how I want us rebuilt, not by some bottomless pit of Qatari cash, in the same manner as City and Chelski done it.

If you want an owner with a clean environmental record maybe we should hope Jacobs puts a bid in "if you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our club". Then when you start to question how they source there cocoa they can tell us it is not actually real chocolate.

What does this Qatari want from Manchester United? what motivates him to bid for us?
 
You won't get a clean billionaire, that's the point. So it just comes down to which do you think will take united to the top.

I'm not saying one is worse than the other like you
 
What did Ratcliffe want from Chelsea? What motivated him to bid for it?
Pure business. Nothing more!

Had United been for sale at the same time as Chelsea what club do you think he would have been in for?

And as usual my question just gets met with another question. Got your tea towels ready lads!
 
In that case like I said previously there is no point to this. Just because you are not hearing what you want to hear!
over and out.
You have no idea what I want to hear, but what I will tell you is that using the phrase tea towel is unacceptable.
 
I am not in favour of any racism. Why do you ask that?
Because you have used the phrase tea towel three times in this thread. If you are not in favour of any racism, then surely you must know using the phrase tea towel in the context you did is inappropriate.
 
Insulting you say? That to go along with another post suggesting I am being abusive! It is I who is being abused and insulted if anyone is! even been told I should boycott the club and deny myself the pleasure (and sometimes the pain) of supporting Manchester United.
I have voiced my resistance to a takeover bid from Qatar and you have all ganged up to shout me down whilst you clearly warm to the idea. The problem here is you all talk each other into it! A bit of positive spin from Qatar, then it only takes 1 or 2 on here to start waxing lyrical and you all get brain washed.
You are not beng abused or insulted.

The point we are trying to make is that if you feel so strongly about the bid from Sheikh Jassim and oppose his potential ownership, then it is not unreasonable to ask if the level of your opposition would likely result in you boycotting the club, as many fans have done since the Glazer takeover.

There have been several replies to your question, we all realise it is sportwashing, I don't know whether you want a different answer.

Are you saying you prefer the Ineos bid which would not wipe the club's debt, and may need to borrow further sums for stadium improvement?
 
Because you have used the phrase tea towel three times in this thread. If you are not in favour of any racism, then surely you must know using the phrase tea towel in the context you did is inappropriate.
I suggest you drop this. There have been no racist connotations within any of my posts!
 
You have used the term tea towel a few times which is racist, it's one step away from rag heads.

You have also said you don't want a Qatari take over, but not called the other bid an English takeover, you are defining only one of the bids by nationality.

We eventually got out of that you agree both bidders have very questionable ethics, but you are happy to overlook this for the "English" bid while competely dismissing it from the "Qatari" bid without explaining why. Are you happy to be owned by a company who destroys the planet, but not by one who restricts it citizens? I don't understand how you can say one is more desirable than the other.

If you'd have said you didn't want either bid, I could understand your point, but for me there is too much hypochrasy.
 
The point we are trying to make is that if you feel so strongly about the bid from Sheikh Jassim and oppose his potential ownership, then it is not unreasonable to ask if the level of your opposition would likely result in you boycotting the club, as many fans have done since the Glazer takeover.
Yes it is unreasonable. Its a bit like saying if your not happy with oil companies etc why dont you get yourself a horse and cart, park your car up, refrain from using diesel trains and dont fly until such times as the whole world is diven on wholly renewable energy. Its a ridiculous thing to say.
There have been several replies to your question, we all realise it is sportwashing, I don't know whether you want a different answer.
I did not recieve one single direct reply to my question
Are you saying you prefer the Ineos bid which would not wipe the club's debt, and may need to borrow further sums for stadium improvement?
I want the club to build it's future success from the income that the club can generate itself. Not to be suddenly gratified by a bottomless pit of money. I dont want United to be the next City or Chelsea. You will note* I didnt say Chelski that time as no doubt that will bring further nonsense allegation.
 
Do we actually think the Qatar bid would pump Utd full of money if they take over? I don't think they will as it doesn't need it.

Sounds to me like they'll clear the debt then just let it be self sufficient probably stick a few of their own sponsors on the shirt instead of Teamviewer who want out.
 
You have used the term tea towel a few times which is racist, it's one step away from rag heads.

You have also said you don't want a Qatari take over, but not called the other bid an English takeover, you are defining only one of the bids by nationality.

We eventually got out of that you agree both bidders have very questionable ethics, but you are happy to overlook this for the "English" bid while competely dismissing it from the "Qatari" bid without explaining why. Are you happy to be owned by a company who destroys the planet, but not by one who restricts it citizens? I don't understand how you can say one is more desirable than the other.

If you'd have said you didn't want either bid, I could understand your point, but for me there is too much hypochrasy.
1. I do have a preference for the club to be British owned, That is not racist.
2. I have indicated that I would much prefer the bid from a local born supporter of the club which Ratcliffe always has been. You decide to tell me he is a Chelsea supporter which he is not because you seemingly cant recognise the corporate reasons for his Chelsea connection.
3. The T - - T - - - - comments are actually a reference to City fans
4. There is nothing racist any any of the above. Simple as that. And I note you continually say English and not British, presume you are another one that thinks England is Britain?
 
Yes it is unreasonable. Its a bit like saying if your not happy with oil companies etc why dont you get yourself a horse and cart, park your car up, refrain from using diesel trains and dont fly until such times as the whole world is diven on wholly renewable energy. Its a ridiculous thing to say.
Hope you don't shop at Sainsbury then, along with many more shops and business.

You're giving these people money all the time, every time you put petrol in the car.

Ratcliffe is coming in, keeping the debt. So how is he going to afford a new stadium and players etc on the profits? There is reason the stadium has had no investment over the years, the money is not there.

He is also in bed with a Bank in London, who probably invest in Saudi etc. So you will take the money via the back door?

I don't think it's as clear as you think, your points seem very muddy.

I am clear in my thinking, ideally I would like someone to come in, clear the debt, and give fan ownership. Not going to happen. So given the choice between dodgy billionaires, I'll take the one who is going to get the club to the top the quickest, while getting the womens team the facilities they need and doing work in the community.
 
Do we actually think the Qatar bid would pump Utd full of money if they take over? I don't think they will as it doesn't need it.

Sounds to me like they'll clear the debt then just let it be self sufficient probably stick a few of their own sponsors on the shirt instead of Teamviewer who want out.
Well it seems to me the aspirations of some fans is that they will buy the club debt free, build a new stadium and training facilities without borrowing. Build a new ground for the womens team, heavily invest in the community including new social housing and other development and no doubt but up all the best available players.
The City and Chelsea model only better.
 
Bit annoyed I've got to stop shopping at Sainsbury's just about worked out where everything is in my local one.
 
Well it seems to me the aspirations of some fans is that they will buy the club debt free, build a new stadium and training facilities without borrowing. Build a new ground for the womens team, heavily invest in the community including new social housing and other development and no doubt but up all the best available players.
The City and Chelsea model only better.

I think these people probably don't have a clue the new owners will remove the debt as they won't want to be sticking loads of money to other banks. They'll agree a settlement for the current debts and move on.

In terms of how they'd fund the projects the club needs we just don't know at this stage. Nothing in life comes for free at some point they'll want a return for every penny spent.

I don't really know how the City owners have funded the investment they've made in facilities. Has that money been borrowed from banks or just booked as a loan to the owners.
 
Bit annoyed I've got to stop shopping at Sainsbury's just about worked out where everything is in my local one.
There's nothing wrong with shopping at Sainsbury's provided you go there and back in one of their trolleys propelled by a broom handle
 
1. I do have a preference for the club to be British owned, That is not racist.
2. I have indicated that I would much prefer the bid from a local born supporter of the club which Ratcliffe always has been. You decide to tell me he is a Chelsea supporter which he is not because you seemingly cant recognise the corporate reasons for his Chelsea connection.
3. The T - - T - - - - comments are actually a reference to City fans
4. There is nothing racist any any of the above. Simple as that. And I note you continually say English and not British, presume you are another one that thinks England is Britain?
1. What's the difference in nationality?
2. That's your opinion whereas I have commented on what's been widely reported. This is what he said "I have a split allegiance really. When I was in London for many, many years, Chelsea I could go and watch - it was quite difficult to go and watch United." Could you have spilt allegiance? I again state, If I was a billionare with a company based in London. I would not buy a Chelsea season ticket. I would buy a united one. I have friends who live in London, I have friends with season tickets who live in America, and go to every home game. And thats not him saying he has a corporate box that his firm uses, that's him going to watch them.
3. It doesn't matter who it is in relation to, it's racist
4. I called him English, because he was Born in England. I am English, I support England at football. I have Irish parents, I live in France, but I am English.
Well it seems to me the aspirations of some fans is that they will buy the club debt free, build a new stadium and training facilities without borrowing. Build a new ground for the womens team, heavily invest in the community including new social housing and other development and no doubt but up all the best available players.
The City and Chelsea model only better.
sounds great


As previously reported, he is believed to have been working with Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan - from Sky

JP Morgan - J.P. Morgan Saudi Arabia | About us

Goldman Sachs - https://www.arabianbusiness.com/ind...-sachs-expanding-in-middle-east-amid-ipo-boom


I really don't understand the difference, or your point. So we go back, you're happy for the "British" bid, using Saudi Money, but not a Qatari bankers bid?
 
At least I have been consistent, me on the Newcatle take over

I don't like it, but it's inevitable, most people with Billions get the money from the middle east, dont they even own Facebook, so it's not like the tech giants aren't investing there.

It's the way it is. Ratcliffe isn't bunging his own dirty money down.

I just want the bid that's best for the club to win through. And what's best for Manchester and the local community. Whoever that is.

I seem to remember a lot of united fans wanting a Saudi buyout.

They do have terrible human rights, but lets not think all these kit manufacturers don't have suspect manufacturing etc. Of course what the Saudi's do is way worse than child labour etc.

I don't think in this instance it's sportwashing, I don't think the state has anything to do with it...... o_O yeah of course it doesn't!

I don't think I would have been happy with a Saudi buyout to be honest. In fact I know I wouldn't have been. But would it stop me supporting them, probably not.

not sure the fans can do anything so why not enjoy it. I bet there aren't many players/managers who will turn down their money.

All the prem teams throwing their dolly out the pram, and complaining to the prem league. Ha, you reap what you sow.
 
Guess a lot depends on your views on football. A lot of people just want to enjoy watching their team play all the off field stuff that comes with it doesn't bother them. I kind of wish I could see it that way again as once you start reading all the other stuff it can make you very cynical about the whole thing.
 
Guess you can look at it in another way.

The rules should have been there to stop the Glazers leveraged buyout in the same way should have been there to stop Abrahmovic but is what Abrahmovic and Abu Dhabi did any different to what Jack Walker or Dave Whelan did? Obviously the reasons for doing it are different it didn't come from a life long love of the club but essentially all 4 are just pumping money into a club out of their own wealth to try and make it punch above it's natural weight.

What is the perfect ownership model?

We've seen at Barcelona that 100% fan/member ownership can bring it's own issues. No president who preaches cost control is ever going to win an election.
The German model of 50+1 probably has the right balance to it but it makes it very hard for clubs to grow. Makes the clubs accountable to the fans who pay membership fees but it has made the Bundesliga very uncompetitive.
 

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Back
Top