The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

Originally Posted by Ethers

The French league was a highly competitive league until the Qatar money arrived.

Well, apart from Lyon winning it eight years in a row just before they arrived.

Originally Posted by believe

well, apart from lyon winning it eight years in a row just before they arrived.

Originally Posted by believe

Well, apart from Lyon winning it eight years in a row just before they arrived.

Montpellier, Lille, Marseille, Bordeaux, Lyon were the winners in the 5 years before PSG’s money kicked in.

Good one though.

ok just so we are clear….

there are two options being presented to us right now…


option one -
Jim
-will keep the glazers on as part owners (the same glazers who have taken over £1b out the club over seen the stadium and training ground deterioration)
-took over a few club quite recently and the fans of that club are far from happy with them.
-tried to buy Chelsea last year so it’s like they are driven by making money out of a football club not the life long United narrative being spun because the face of the bid of a white British man.

Qatar
-will make the club debt free
-will fund the stadium and training ground upgrade
-won’t necessarily interfere with the day tonrunning if the club except employing the very best which will help the club move in the right direction.

I’m not suprised some are picking Jim’s bid. As I’ve been stating there are people on here who have been making bad decisions their whole life despite the better one being quite obvious.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Montpellier, Lille, Marseille, Bordeaux, Lyon were the winners in the 5 years before PSG’s money kicked in.

Good one though.

So it was highly competitive for four seasons? Yeah good one, done me

Next season we could have five teams in the premier league competing for first place. That would make it the most competitive it’s been in its history.

Originally Posted by believe

Well, apart from Lyon winning it eight years in a row just before they arrived.

7 years in a row. And that wasn't just before PSG were taken over. 5 different teams won the league in the 5 seasons before PSG were taken over.

So it would seem the league was competitive just before PSG were taken over.

Lyon won the league by 2 points, 1 point, 3 points and 4 points in four of those seasons. The three season where they absolutely ran away with the league they won by 17, 15 12.

In the 9 seasons PSG have won the league since they were taken over, they've won it by 12 points, 9 points, 8 points, 31 points, 13 points, 16 points, 12 points, 15 points and 1 point last season.

Not to mention that Lyon did it organically and not through financial doping. They also smashed their recruitment bedding in players like Malouda, Essien, Sidney Govou, Juninho, Eric Abidal, Diarra and Benzema.

People can make up their minds as to whether the league was more competitive before, but the above is all factual.

Personally, Lyon's unbelievable period of domination was thoroughly deserved, and akin to our domination for two decades and the treble season. Earned properly through hard work and good club management. Comparing Lyon's domination with PSG's current domination after their takeover is akin to saying City's treble is just as good as ours was.

But if that's what you think then who am I to argue?

Originally Posted by believe

So it was highly competitive for four seasons? Yeah good one, done me

Next season we could have five teams in the premier league competing for first place. That would make it the most competitive it’s been in its history.

5 winners in 5 years isn’t a competitive league? Are you okay?

Not even sure what the rest of your post means.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

7 years in a row. And that wasn't just before PSG were taken over. 5 different teams won the league in the 5 seasons before PSG were taken over.

So it would seem the league was competitive just before PSG were taken over.

Lyon won the league by 2 points, 1 point, 3 points and 4 points in four of those seasons. The three season where they absolutely ran away with the league they won by 17, 15 12.

In the 9 seasons PSG have won the league since they were taken over, they've won it by 12 points, 9 points, 8 points, 31 points, 13 points, 16 points, 12 points, 15 points and 1 point last season.

Not to mention that Lyon did it organically and not through financial doping. They also smashed their recruitment bedding in players like Malouda, Essien, Sidney Govou, Juninho, Eric Abidal, Diarra and Benzema.

People can make up their minds as to whether the league was more competitive before, but the above is all factual.

Personally, Lyon's unbelievable period of domination was thoroughly deserved, and akin to our domination for two decades and the treble season. Earned properly through hard work and good club management. Comparing Lyon's domination with PSG's current domination after their takeover is akin to saying City's treble is just as good as ours was.

But if that's what you think then who am I to argue?

Pointless posting that to Bellers tbf, as he refuses to recognise there’s a difference between our domination under Fergie, and City’s under Guardiola. We’re just bitter apparently.

Originally Posted by Ethers

5 winners in 5 years isn’t a competitive league? Are you okay?

Not even sure what the rest of your post means.


Pointless posting that to Bellers tbf, as he refuses to recognise there’s a difference between our domination under Fergie, and City’s under Guardiola. We’re just bitter apparently.

You still didn’t answer my question about is challenging for the league in the next couple of years.

Originally Posted by believe

You still didn’t answer my question about is challenging for the league in the next couple of years.

Yes I do, I’ve said it loads of times, he’s made great progress this season and will hopefully build on things next season. Our incredible record at home is a really solid foundation to build on, and with a decent keeper, a couple of midfielders and a striker, we’re in a great place to be at least in the title picture, although actually winning it next season feels a big ask given what a machine City are.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Yes I do, I’ve said it loads of times, he’s made great progress this season and will hopefully build on things next season. Our incredible record at home is a really solid foundation to build on, and with a decent keeper, a couple of midfielders and a striker, we’re in a great place to be at least in the title picture, although actually winning it next season feels a big ask given what a machine City are.

Do you think Newcastle, Liverpool or Arsenal could challenge?

Originally Posted by marlo

ok just so we are clear….


Jim
-will keep the glazers on as part owners (the same glazers who have taken over £1b out the club over seen the stadium and training ground deterioration)
-took over a few club quite recently and the fans of that club are far from happy with them.
-tried to buy Chelsea last year so it’s like they are driven by making money out of a football club not the life long United narrative being spun because the face of the bid of a white British man.

Qatar
-will make the club debt free
-will fund the stadium and training ground upgrade
-won’t necessarily interfere with the day tonrunning if the club except employing the very best which will help the club move in the right direction.

Jim: made his money by raping the earth of its natural resources

Qatar: made their money by raping the earth of its natural resources


Although TBF, Jim has a better human rights record from what I know.

Originally Posted by believe

Do you think Newcastle, Liverpool or Arsenal could challenge?

I’d be surprised. Arsenal will revert to norm, this was a one off season for them and they £#%&!ed it. I don’t think even Newcastle will be thinking about winning the league, they’ll see consolidation by getting top 4 again as a good season. Liverpool are past their peak, and again would see getting back in the CL as a good season. They’d need huge money spent to get near city.

Originally Posted by shenwen

Sure

I think this whole thing is getting to you. Some awful takes lately. Although I do agree that wanting the Qatar bid simply because of unlimited funds is a bad way of looking at things. But I'm not sure that is what is happening (on here at least - I don't read Twitter opinions).

I don't want the Qatar bid. I also don't want the Radcliffe bid. So here we are. But back to where you say I'm talking shit, I'm just surprised at how many have been so quick to say it's okay for the glazers stay, part of which comes from the local lad/loves the club narrative.

No, let’s get it right. You keep saying, repeatedly, that people (me, Patty, Ethers presumably) have been taken in by the local boy done good thing. As though it’s a deciding factor. It isn’t. It’s helpful to have a bit of history and understand the context of the club locally but that’s it. my main issue isn’t Jim’s background, it’s not wanting ME money taking over and massively distorting football and MUFC. I would prefer pretty much any alternative bid to that of a sovereign state.

You also alluded elsewhere that I was being racist because I commented on the track record of ME cheating in sport.

That’s why you’re talking shit pal.

link me to all my bad takes please.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

No, let’s get it right. You keep saying, repeatedly, that people (me, Patty, Ethers presumably) have been taken in by the local boy done good thing. As though it’s a deciding factor. It isn’t. It’s helpful to have a bit of history and understand the context of the club locally but that’s it. my main issue isn’t Jim’s background, it’s not wanting ME money taking over and massively distorting football and MUFC. I would prefer pretty much any alternative bid to that of a sovereign state.

You also alluded elsewhere that I was being racist because I commented on the track record of ME cheating in sport.

That’s why you’re talking shit pal.

link me to all my bad takes please.

Fair enough on your reasons for wanting the Jim bid to win. It's anti-Qatar rathe than pro-Jim right? Although I am still surprised that keeping the glazers on isn't seen as a deal breaker for you. I guess the dislike of the Qatar bid beats everything else.

As for alluding that you was being a racist. Don't be daft. I wrote clearly that you made a crude generalisation saying cheating is part of Qatari/Middle East culture. Any read on that about racism is not coming from me. As for bad takes, there's one for you right away. If I thought you was a racist (I don't) I wouldn't need to allude to it - I'd call you out straight away.

Originally Posted by shenwen

Fair enough on your reasons for wanting the Jim bid to win. It's anti-Qatar rathe than pro-Jim right? Although I am still surprised that keeping the glazers on isn't seen as a deal breaker for you. I guess the dislike of the Qatar bid beats everything else.

As for alluding that you was being a racist. Don't be daft. I wrote clearly that you made a crude generalisation saying cheating is part of Qatari/Middle East culture. Any read on that about racism is not coming from me. As for bad takes, there's one for you right away. If I thought you was a racist (I don't) I wouldn't need to allude to it - I'd call you out straight away.

I'm not sure why the likes of you and Magic keep going on about the Glazer's staying on when it's already been explained to you that Radcliffe will not be keeping the Glazer's on
He'll leave them a small minority shareholding similar to what hedge funds currently have

No Utd fans give a shit about these hedge funds owning a minority shareholding in Utd because there's no reason to as they don't have any control or influence over the club and that's what the Glazer's would be reduced to, irrelevance

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

I'm not sure why the likes of you and Magic keep going on about the Glazer's staying on when it's already been explained to you that Radcliffe will not be keeping the Glazer's on
He'll leave them a small minority shareholding similar to what hedge funds currently have

No Utd fans give a shit about these hedge funds owning a minority shareholding in Utd because there's no reason to as they don't have any control or influence over the club and that's what the Glazer's would be reduced to, irrelevance

Thanks. Good to know that after the sale the Glazers won't be around, except as minority shareholders still £#%&! the club's teat. I'm sure you're right that no United fans will give a shit about that. Just like hedge funds right? Not quite how I interpreted Glazers Out, but you can't win them all eh?

Either way its a nice problem to have considering we never thought we'd be rid of the @#%&!s

Originally Posted by BarryX

Jim: made his money by raping the earth of its natural resources

Qatar: made their money by raping the earth of its natural resources


Although TBF, Jim has a better human rights record from what I know.

The same resources you use all day, every day? Those resources?

Without a you there wouldn't be an Ineos mate.

Originally Posted by shenwen

Thanks. Good to know that after the sale the Glazers won't be around, except as minority shareholders still £#%&! the club's teat. I'm sure you're right that no United fans will give a shit about that. Just like hedge funds right? Not quite how I interpreted Glazers Out, but you can't win them all eh?

How would it be £#%&! the clubs teat exactly?

Originally Posted by Ethers

How would it be £#%&! the clubs teat exactly?

How wouldn't it? What am I missing? How would somebody still owning a significant number of shares not be in a position to profit from that? The spike in share price today for example?