United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Football
Closed Thread
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 07:58 AM
53RedRum
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suedeshoes
I've read that twice. Still makes no sense.

Bryan Robson is 66 and probably not available to buy.

You'd like United to be owned by a 'state'? A 'state' with a complete disregard for human rights?
Complete disregard for human rights

Don't worry about the splinter in your neighbours eye, worry about the plank in your own eye.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:03 AM
shenwen
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Stranger


“Are we really picking and choosing between environmental issues and human rights”

Yes. Yes we are.
You don't think environmental issue are also human rights issues? Or you just posting that to be more popular?

Again, for those like yourself, the point I'm making, or the question I'm asking: what makes Big Jim such a good option? Why are some portraying him as some kind of honest Joe (Jim) saviour?

I understand why people don't want the Qataris. I even agree with most of the reasons. I don't understand why Ratcliffe is getting so much love.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:06 AM
Hyman_Roth
 
Default

Do people really think the state ownership of a handful of clubs is a good thing? Can’t get my head around that at all.

Us, city, Newcastle and psg battling it out for top honours every year.

People are being naive if they think the owners of Newcastle and city won’t find ways of disproportionately investing in their clubs - otherwise, why on Earth have they bought them? It’s a terrible ownership model for football.

The giddiness with which people on here are happily skipping off down that road is odd.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:08 AM
Bunker Buster
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Yep.

We’ve always looked down on City, and more recently Newcastle. And even going back to Chelsea under Abramovich. We’ve mocked them. We’ve pointed out what harm they’ve done to the wider game.

But as soon as our turn comes, it appears that a massive portion of our fanbase can’t wait for it. A few on here are an announcement away from donning tea towels and heading down to Old Trafford. Maybe do a quick survey while they’re there and work out just how many billion the stadium needs.

The main justification seems to be “I just want the glazers gone” - in which case, who does it matter who buys us? Makes no difference if it’s Qatar, Ineos or Olly Murs.

The other one seems to be “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Which even if it’s wrong (you can beat them without joining them, we’re proving that already) it’s at least honest. It’s all about winning, and as quickly as possible. It’s not a United problem tbf, football these days is all about instant gratification, instant results. Salivating over the biggest transfers. The big names. No time for hard work or a long term plan - all about the easy fix and throwing money at things.

Undoubtedly if Qatar are in charge, the Facebook and Twitter reds will have plenty to buzz off. Delighted for them.

Personally, the thought of guaranteed success leaves me a bit cold. It’s why City’s league titles will never mean as much as ours, because they were bought rather than earned.

I do find it a shame that we’re going to end up joining them.
Post....

The absolute glee of some on here....



Ineos environmental issues .... they're a £#%&!ing chemical company, EA exceeding happen all the time ...

Guess it aligns with over 300 public floggings last year for smiling in the street and stuff .
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:10 AM
AK14
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth
Do people really think the state ownership of a handful of clubs is a good thing? Can’t get my head around that at all.

Us, city, Newcastle and psg battling it out for top honours every year. :smh:

People are being naive if they think the owners of Newcastle and city won’t find ways of disproportionately investing in their clubs - otherwise, why on Earth have they bought them? It’s a terrible ownership model for football.

The giddiness with which people on here are happily skipping off down that road is odd.
That’s no guarantee, it’s not like PSG and City are doing that at the moment.

If it’s a straight shootout between them buying us or Liverpool I’m finding it difficult to want it to be Liverpool. I’m not pleased with myself, but there we go. I know the mob will pounce on that, but football as we knew it is dead and will never go back to what it was.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:10 AM
shenwen
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunker Buster
Post....

The absolute glee of some on here....



Ineos environmental issues .... they're a £#%&!ing chemical company, EA exceeding happen all the time ...

Guess it aligns with over 300 public floggings last year for smiling in the street and stuff .
Ooh, good to hear. I was worried a minute there.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:12 AM
Hyman_Roth
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Yep.

We’ve always looked down on City, and more recently Newcastle. And even going back to Chelsea under Abramovich. We’ve mocked them. We’ve pointed out what harm they’ve done to the wider game.

But as soon as our turn comes, it appears that a massive portion of our fanbase can’t wait for it. A few on here are an announcement away from donning tea towels and heading down to Old Trafford. Maybe do a quick survey while they’re there and work out just how many billion the stadium needs.

The main justification seems to be “I just want the glazers gone” - in which case, who does it matter who buys us? Makes no difference if it’s Qatar, Ineos or Olly Murs.

The other one seems to be “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Which even if it’s wrong (you can beat them without joining them, we’re proving that already) it’s at least honest. It’s all about winning, and as quickly as possible. It’s not a United problem tbf, football these days is all about instant gratification, instant results. Salivating over the biggest transfers. The big names. No time for hard work or a long term plan - all about the easy fix and throwing money at things.

Undoubtedly if Qatar are in charge, the Facebook and Twitter reds will have plenty to buzz off. Delighted for them.

Personally, the thought of guaranteed success leaves me a bit cold. It’s why City’s league titles will never mean as much as ours, because they were bought rather than earned.

I do find it a shame that we’re going to end up joining them.
Didn’t see this post. Wordingtons.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:13 AM
Ethers
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shenwen
You don't think environmental issue are also human rights issues? Or you just posting that to be more popular?

Again, for those like yourself, the point I'm making, or the question I'm asking: what makes Big Jim such a good option? Why are some portraying him as some kind of honest Joe (Jim) saviour?

I understand why people don't want the Qataris. I even agree with most of the reasons. I don't understand why Ratcliffe is getting so much love.
Can’t speak for others, but he ticks a lot of boxes. He isn’t the Glazers. He isn’t the oil lads. He isn’t putting the club into debt.

It was apparent pretty early on in the process that there would be a small number of realistic bidders, so I think that’s why some people have got behind him, as the best option from a limited few.

I didn’t have a clue who he was beforehand tbh, but for me the fact he is local, and self-made, does matter and feels a positive. Maybe that is overly romantic, and I don’t expect everyone to be arsed about that, the same way a lot of our support don’t care anymore about having local lads in the team.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:22 AM
measlyshark
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Yep.

We’ve always looked down on City, and more recently Newcastle. And even going back to Chelsea under Abramovich. We’ve mocked them. We’ve pointed out what harm they’ve done to the wider game.

But as soon as our turn comes, it appears that a massive portion of our fanbase can’t wait for it. A few on here are an announcement away from donning tea towels and heading down to Old Trafford. Maybe do a quick survey while they’re there and work out just how many billion the stadium needs.

The main justification seems to be “I just want the glazers gone” - in which case, who does it matter who buys us? Makes no difference if it’s Qatar, Ineos or Olly Murs.

The other one seems to be “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Which even if it’s wrong (you can beat them without joining them, we’re proving that already) it’s at least honest. It’s all about winning, and as quickly as possible. It’s not a United problem tbf, football these days is all about instant gratification, instant results. Salivating over the biggest transfers. The big names. No time for hard work or a long term plan - all about the easy fix and throwing money at things.

Undoubtedly if Qatar are in charge, the Facebook and Twitter reds will have plenty to buzz off. Delighted for them.

Personally, the thought of guaranteed success leaves me a bit cold. It’s why City’s league titles will never mean as much as ours, because they were bought rather than earned.

I do find it a shame that we’re going to end up joining them.
Post.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:29 AM
Dr Stranger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shenwen
You don't think environmental issue are also human rights issues? Or you just posting that to be more popular?
It’s probably just that tbf.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Yep.

We’ve always looked down on City, and more recently Newcastle. And even going back to Chelsea under Abramovich. We’ve mocked them. We’ve pointed out what harm they’ve done to the wider game.

But as soon as our turn comes, it appears that a massive portion of our fanbase can’t wait for it. A few on here are an announcement away from donning tea towels and heading down to Old Trafford. Maybe do a quick survey while they’re there and work out just how many billion the stadium needs.

The main justification seems to be “I just want the glazers gone” - in which case, who does it matter who buys us? Makes no difference if it’s Qatar, Ineos or Olly Murs.

The other one seems to be “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Which even if it’s wrong (you can beat them without joining them, we’re proving that already) it’s at least honest. It’s all about winning, and as quickly as possible. It’s not a United problem tbf, football these days is all about instant gratification, instant results. Salivating over the biggest transfers. The big names. No time for hard work or a long term plan - all about the easy fix and throwing money at things.

Undoubtedly if Qatar are in charge, the Facebook and Twitter reds will have plenty to buzz off. Delighted for them.

Personally, the thought of guaranteed success leaves me a bit cold. It’s why City’s league titles will never mean as much as ours, because they were bought rather than earned.

I do find it a shame that we’re going to end up joining them.
Ethers has answered it better than I could. 👏🏻

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Can’t speak for others, but he ticks a lot of boxes. He isn’t the Glazers. He isn’t the oil lads. He isn’t putting the club into debt.

It was apparent pretty early on in the process that there would be a small number of realistic bidders, so I think that’s why some people have got behind him, as the best option from a limited few.

I didn’t have a clue who he was beforehand tbh, but for me the fact he is local, and self-made, does matter and feels a positive. Maybe that is overly romantic, and I don’t expect everyone to be arsed about that, the same way a lot of our support don’t care anymore about having local lads in the team.
And this.

Let’s be honest, there’s no perfect bidder. There’s nobody who can afford us that doesn’t have skeletons in the closet, but Ratcliffe ticks the most ‘romantic’ boxes. As close to a fan buying the club as we can get in this day and age. He can afford it too. He’s just not as wealthy as Qatar.

If he was wealthier than Qatar, would we even be debating that ethical balance? I doubt it. It would a resounding ‘Jim in’ shout.

The sole reason to want Qatar is because they have endless money rather than just enough money. We don’t need endless money. We need ambition and to be run properly.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:30 AM
shenwen
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Can’t speak for others, but he ticks a lot of boxes. He isn’t the Glazers. He isn’t the oil lads. He isn’t putting the club into debt.

It was apparent pretty early on in the process that there would be a small number of realistic bidders, so I think that’s why some people have got behind him, as the best option from a limited few.

I didn’t have a clue who he was beforehand tbh, but for me the fact he is local, and self-made, does matter and feels a positive. Maybe that is overly romantic, and I don’t expect everyone to be arsed about that, the same way a lot of our support don’t care anymore about having local lads in the team.
Fair enough. For me, all the isn't "Big Jim" just a great billionaire posts are just as odd as the tea towel crew, and probably way more naive.

But we'll see. Or are likely we won't, as he's not going to win the bid.

So what's next? Protests? Boycotts? Keep wringing our hands for the foreseeable? Or like Earsy says, do we just accept that football lost the plot many years ago and get on with it?

For me, I can't see any alternative other than the latter option. Just hoping our fanbase never turns into the "aren't our owners just brilliant human beings?" that we've seen from City. It's not much, but about the best we can hope for.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:32 AM
Dr Stranger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shenwen
Fair enough. For me, all the isn't "Big Jim" just a great billionaire posts are just as odd as the tea towel crew, and probably way more naive.

But we'll see. Or are likely we won't, as he's not going to win the bid.

So what's next? Protests? Boycotts? Keep wringing our hands for the foreseeable? Or like Earsy says, do we just accept that football lost the plot many years ago and get on with it?

For me, I can't see any alternative other than the latter option. Just hoping our fanbase never turns into the "aren't our owners just brilliant human beings?" that we've seen from City. It's not much, but about the best we can hope for.
Is anyone really doing that other than tongue in cheek? Most ‘pro Jim’ seem to be because they oppose the Qatar ethics and he’s a the lesser of two evils.

I think it’s all moot. Glazers will sell to the highest bidder and that will be Qatar. The only sticking point might be conflict of interest or something like that, but you’d imagine they would have covered all that before bidding.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:35 AM
shenwen
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Stranger
It’s probably just that tbf.



Ethers has answered it better than I could. 👏🏻



And this.

Let’s be honest, there’s no perfect bidder. There’s nobody who can afford us that doesn’t have skeletons in the closet, but Ratcliffe ticks the most ‘romantic’ boxes. As close to a fan buying the club as we can get in this day and age. He can afford it too. He’s just not as wealthy as Qatar.

If he was wealthier than Qatar, would we even be debating that ethical balance? I doubt it. It would a resounding ‘Jim in’ shout.

The sole reason to want Qatar is because they have endless money rather than just enough money. We don’t need endless money. We need ambition and to be run properly.
Again, fair enough. The romantic angle worries me as much as it did when Moyes became manager. Football no longer a game of romance, sadly.

Also, seen nothing to suggest a winning Ineos bid will help with ambition and the club being run properly. Certainly hasn't emerged at Nice.

Forced to choose, I'd definitely support his bid more than I would Qatar. I just don't think it's going to be wine and roses whoever buys us.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 08:41 AM
Dr Stranger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shenwen
Again, fair enough. The romantic angle worries me as much as it did when Moyes became manager. Football no longer a game of romance, sadly.

Also, seen nothing to suggest a winning Ineos bid will help with ambition and the club being run properly. Certainly hasn't emerged at Nice.

Forced to choose, I'd definitely support his bid more than I would Qatar. I just don't think it's going to be wine and roses whoever buys us.
I don’t think anyone is under any illusions that it’s some perfect marriage. It’s just as close as we’re going to get, the way the modern game is. We’re a £5bn product. Fans will never own that again. To get the Glazers out, you always felt it was ‘£#%&! you’ money or nothing.

If we can somehow do that with something close to a self-made fan, I can understand people backing.

Beyond that, yes, I do agree that it’s less of financial certainty that it’ll work, but I suppose the price we pay for our ethics (if you even consider it ethically preferable to be Team Jim).

No sale comes without a big cost and plenty of concern. Handing the keys over always will.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 09:09 AM
Whip Hubley
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Yep.

We’ve always looked down on City, and more recently Newcastle. And even going back to Chelsea under Abramovich. We’ve mocked them. We’ve pointed out what harm they’ve done to the wider game.

But as soon as our turn comes, it appears that a massive portion of our fanbase can’t wait for it. A few on here are an announcement away from donning tea towels and heading down to Old Trafford. Maybe do a quick survey while they’re there and work out just how many billion the stadium needs.

The main justification seems to be “I just want the glazers gone” - in which case, who does it matter who buys us? Makes no difference if it’s Qatar, Ineos or Olly Murs.

The other one seems to be “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Which even if it’s wrong (you can beat them without joining them, we’re proving that already) it’s at least honest. It’s all about winning, and as quickly as possible. It’s not a United problem tbf, football these days is all about instant gratification, instant results. Salivating over the biggest transfers. The big names. No time for hard work or a long term plan - all about the easy fix and throwing money at things.

Undoubtedly if Qatar are in charge, the Facebook and Twitter reds will have plenty to buzz off. Delighted for them.

Personally, the thought of guaranteed success leaves me a bit cold. It’s why City’s league titles will never mean as much as ours, because they were bought rather than earned.

I do find it a shame that we’re going to end up joining them.

To play devil's advocate a bit:

1) The list of potential buyers is so small, I don't think any bidding £5bn+ for a football club are going to exactly be shining beacons of righteousness

2) Ultimately, as long as we stay within the rules - i.e. spending money that we as a club generate - I don't have a huge problem with big investment.

The likes of city, newcastle and to a certain extent chelsea are a joke precisely because it's the investment that's turned them into a 'big' club. We on the other hand have and always will be a big club, that's been hamstrung by the owners.


there's a big difference between taking a tinpot outfit like city and ploughing 2bn into them to turn them into league winners, and taking a well established top 2/3 club in the world and re-investing.


That said, there's no satisfactory outcomes in this. Anyway who has been following football since the 80's or before know it's a different game now. It's been completely sterilised. Enjoy whatever you can while you can because i'm fairly convinced it's going to £#%&! itself over even more in the next decade. Smaller clubs will die out and the ESL will happen in some form or another.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 09:14 AM
53RedRum
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whip Hubley
To play devil's advocate a bit:

1) The list of potential buyers is so small, I don't think any bidding £5bn+ for a football club are going to exactly be shining beacons of righteousness

2) Ultimately, as long as we stay within the rules - i.e. spending money that we as a club generate - I don't have a huge problem with big investment.

The likes of city, newcastle and to a certain extent chelsea are a joke precisely because it's the investment that's turned them into a 'big' club. We on the other hand have and always will be a big club, that's been hamstrung by the owners.


there's a big difference between taking a tinpot outfit like city and ploughing 2bn into them to turn them into league winners, and taking a well established top 2/3 club in the world and re-investing.


That said, there's no satisfactory outcomes in this. Anyway who has been following football since the 80's or before know it's a different game now. It's been completely sterilised. Enjoy whatever you can while you can because i'm fairly convinced it's going to £#%&! itself over even more in the next decade. Smaller clubs will die out and the ESL will happen in some form or another.
May as well talk to a brick wall.

Qatar bad - brexit Jim good.



Qatar is a top country, just like most of the middle East.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 10:45 AM
92ToBury
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suedeshoes
I've read that twice. Still makes no sense.

Bryan Robson is 66 and probably not available to buy.

You'd like United to be owned by a 'state'? A 'state' with a complete disregard for human rights?
That doesn't surprise me, you're smart as a box of rocks.

For Robbo, read Jude Bellingham. The best young English midfielder around.

For those that say the Glazers let us spend, they seem to quickly forget the "no value in the market" era of Ronaldo out, Valencia and Owen in so they could smarten up the accounts to refinance. Jim's not going to clear the debt, he's going to reshuffle it on to Ineos initially then slowly drip it out of the club to get it back. He hasn't got the money to do the equivalent of donating the money. It'll be Glazer ownership by a thousand cuts.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 10:59 AM
dunk
 
Default

 
Unread 18-02-2023, 11:02 AM
Jethro
 
Default

Shenners and Ethers both make very valid points. But let's face it, we're not going to happy no matter what. This mythical top red billionaire is a fallacy.
 
Unread 18-02-2023, 11:10 AM
The taste of...
 
Default

The more ( speculation- granted ) I’m hearing,

Let top red Jim buy the vermin and get it paid back from the club, pay his investors some dividends, and boil their piss for obvious reasons

We’ll have to live with the Arabs to clear the debt and then once on a level field with the Bert’s barcodes and PSG hope the authorities do their bit with FFP and the Western world the human rights
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Big Jim’s officially in..
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First one officially gone… dunk Football 19 26-05-2022 08:18 PM
who officially spotted the pea? wonky no Football 26 26-01-2011 09:39 AM
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:24 AM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.