United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Football
Closed Thread
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 12:22 AM
Rex7
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropical
if memory serves, that was Kenyon, not Gill. Credit *cough* where it's due and all that.


And this, regarding Fergie, Gill, Coolmore and the Glazers, is interesting:

http://www.fredtissue.co.uk/news/loa...TMNW&id=332198

It may not be the case. Bose is far from infallible. But then again, it may be.

And Fergie's role in introducing the Irish investors to the club is well documented. As his his part in subsequently alienating them at a time when keeping them on side - or at least attempting to do so - might have been a very useful thing.

If that's true, Gill/Kenyon are bigger idiots that I thought.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 12:28 AM
armchair
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropical
And Fergie's role in introducing the Irish investors to the club is well documented. As his his part in subsequently alienating them at a time when keeping them on side - or at least attempting to do so - might have been a very useful thing.
Total bullshit. Like those sharks needed an introduction. I don't think you realise the nature of the beast. I think ri got it totally wrong too. They tricked fergie, the glazers and the banks. It's what they do. They are gamblers not philanthropists.

Made me sick the questions business and the fact that some fans applauded it happening. Poking a dog with a stick would be more moral.

I was at newcastle away with one of them and they don't give a £#%&!. In fact they think it's funny as £#%&! how much they tricked out of glazer.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 07:34 AM
Lou_Macari_Chippy
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armchair
Total bullshit. Like those sharks needed an introduction. I don't think you realise the nature of the beast. I think ri got it totally wrong too. They tricked fergie, the glazers and the banks. It's what they do. They are gamblers not philanthropists.

Made me sick the questions business and the fact that some fans applauded it happening. Poking a dog with a stick would be more moral.

I was at newcastle away with one of them and they don't give a £#%&!. In fact they think it's funny as £#%&! how much they tricked out of glazer.
I'm quite sure they tricked the glazers but i'm not so sure they tricked fergie though - how much did he and gill make out of the deal?

IMO fergie and gill had a very good grasp on the situation and they played their hands the way they thought they could maximize their investments. Fergusons grandchildren's grandchildren will never have to worry about money.

I think ferguson felt aggrieved at the money he had made over the years, all the success he had brought the club but compared to some of the players his salary was nothing special. I think he felt he was entitled to one big pay day and he took his opportunity when it came along.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 08:18 AM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Ferguson has made money for his family's future comfort, there's no question about that.

Then again, he's been arguably the most successful manager in English football history for 20 years at arguably the biggest football club in the world. So it's hardly surprising, is it now.

As for him introducing Coolmore to the possibility of getting involved in making money out of United. Ahem. And, ahem. And throw in, just for good measure you understand, a quick Yeah right!

As for the notion of Ferguson having the casting vote as to whether the Glazer takeover went ahead? I recognise the argument being made now; it's that one where he was supposed to pretend he was bigger than the club and threaten to walk away if they seized control.

I actually think this claim is beyond even the most fanciful credibility. But even if there is a grain of truth in it as far as just one of the "investers" goes, the extension of it is that all investment in United could be in jeopardy without Ferguson's presence at the rudder. And yet the claim is being used by people who think he thinks he is United and would happily see him gone for that in itself. Very confusing. For them I mean, obviously ;-)
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 08:52 AM
violater
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
And yet the claim is being used by people who think he thinks he is United and would happily see him gone for that in itself. Very confusing. For them I mean, obviously ;-)
very good point.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 11:20 AM
BryanRobson'sLiver
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by celtbion
In fairness, in this day and age, I wouldn't take the fact that someone is doing a PhD as evidence of their intelligence.

Let's stop this particular line of argument anyway, I like to think the Good Will Hunting style repartee between guys who fancy themselves because they can regurgitate what nuggets they can remember through the drink fueled haze of reading Arts in a Poly somewhere was left behind me in the Sanc.
I was interviewed by someone doing a PhD on corrie, he said that it wasn't the strangest as he knew someone doing one on Patrick Swayze.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 11:30 AM
celtbion
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanRobson'sLiver
I was interviewed by someone doing a PhD on corrie, he said that it wasn't the strangest as he knew someone doing one on Patrick Swayze.

No, I wouldn't complain about the nature of the subject matter. More that there's some very ordinary students undertaking and completing PhDs now. I don't see the point myself. Waste of everybody's time.

Supervisers like it though, allows them to get work done on the cheap.

Self-centred #@&%!s.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 12:11 PM
Jack Duckworth
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by celtbion
In fairness, in this day and age, I wouldn't take the fact that someone is doing a PhD as evidence of their intelligence.
definitely
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 10:06 PM
celtbion
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
I work for a bank, dumbass. I'll be giving the thumbs up to a $3.2billion deal tomorrow morning whilst you're still sleeping off your beer.

you're right that I should be running united. stopped clock and all that, but well done. of course, I should be running the world.
I think you should be running Utd too Jem.

Any chance of siphoning off a handy $1 billion of that without anyone noticing and I can make some placards by way of doing my bit?
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 10:27 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
is the reason we don't pay any tax because we only get taxed on profits? :0)
Typical disgustingly rich tax-dodging bastards. but then aren't they all.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 11:04 PM
Mr. Rosewater
 
Default

This is some £#%&!ed up thread.

Got too fast so I bailed out when tufty said private companies don't pay corporation tax.

LUHG NFT
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 11:34 PM
Cantona's collar
 
Default

Could i just drag this thread into the gutter by just stating that the Glazers are @#%&!s?

The Glazers are @#%&!s.

Ok carry on, i feel much better now.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 11:36 PM
Rex7
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantona's collar
Could i just drag this thread into the gutter by just stating that the Glazers are @#%&!s?

The Glazers are @#%&!s.

Ok carry on, i feel much better now.
Pretty sure everyone in the thread would agree with that.
 
Unread 03-04-2007, 11:38 PM
Cantona's collar
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex7
Pretty sure everyone in the thread would agree with that.
I get the impression one chap quite likes them.
 
Unread 04-04-2007, 12:29 AM
Tropical
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky6899
The day that all English clubs get to negotiate their own TV deals cannot come quick enough. Then we'll see who the 'biggest club in the world' is.

That's the only way we're going to get back into the black anyway.
something about this thread was nagging at me.



(No, not the obvious thing. I put that thing on ignore long before this thread. My boredom threshold is only so high. I wouldn't even know it was trying to nag at me if folk didn't quote it intermittently.)



But back to the matter at hand. Here's a scenario to consider: what if the day the collective TV deals for English clubs are broken up is the beginning of the end for the Premiership - or any notion at all of an English top flight.



Some clubs go to the wall without the TV money (City first, probably; but bear with me, it's not all good news.) Those that survive fall so much further behind the wealthier clubs that the old saw about any club in the top division being able to beat any other club on its day will no longer hold true. Which means that competition in the upper echelon of English football is effectively over. It's one thing if only three or four clubs can win the league, quite another if only three or four clubs can win a game.



Big clubs can't exist in a vacuum (as Chelsea will discover if they carry on spending far more than they could ever possibly earn.) The formation of a European super league becomes pretty much inevitable, as that's the only way the big English clubs can play every week without the outcome being either tediously inevitable, embarrassingly one-sided, or both. So it's goodbye to most local derbies, and indeed to local interest. Goodbye to the rivalries and loyalties that sustain football from the ground up. The franchise-style operation is well and truly on its way, with Chelsea as the model of an English club sustained instead from the top down.



You might well tell me this is hardly my problem, and I suppose it isn't, at least in theory, for someone who watches United the way I do. But I can't see how it will be anything but bad for United - and eventually for *all* United fans who cherish some notion of the club's identity - in the medium and long term to cut it off from its grassroots, and from all but (realistically) three other English clubs. And, come to that, anything but bad for football. Without wanting to sound partisan - much - English football without United would not be much of an attraction.
 
Unread 04-04-2007, 12:39 AM
Rex7
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropical
something about this thread was nagging at me.



(No, not the obvious thing. I put that thing on ignore long before this thread. My boredom threshold is only so high. I wouldn't even know it was trying to nag at me if folk didn't quote it intermittently.)



But back to the matter at hand. Here's a scenario to consider: what if the day the collective TV deals for English clubs are broken up is the beginning of the end for the Premiership - or any notion at all of an English top flight.



Some clubs go to the wall without the TV money (City first, probably; but bear with me, it's not all good news.) Those that survive fall so much further behind the wealthier clubs that the old saw about any club in the top division being able to beat any other club on its day will no longer hold true. Which means that competition in the upper echelon of English football is effectively over. It's one thing if only three or four clubs can win the league, quite another if only three or four clubs can win a game.



Big clubs can't exist in a vacuum (as Chelsea will discover if they carry on spending far more than they could ever possibly earn.) The formation of a European super league becomes pretty much inevitable, as that's the only way the big English clubs can play every week without the outcome being either tediously inevitable, embarrassingly one-sided, or both. So it's goodbye to most local derbies, and indeed to local interest. Goodbye to the rivalries and loyalties that sustain football from the ground up. The franchise-style operation is well and truly on its way, with Chelsea as the model of an English club sustained instead from the top down.



You might well tell me this is hardly my problem, and I suppose it isn't, at least in theory, for someone who watches United the way I do. But I can't see how it will be anything but bad for United - and eventually for *all* United fans who cherish some notion of the club's identity - in the medium and long term to cut it off from its grassroots, and from all but (realistically) three other English clubs. And, come to that, anything but bad for football. Without wanting to sound partisan - much - English football without United would not be much of an attraction.

Spot on. That is my biggest concern about the whole situation. I think English football on the whole is going to get £#%&!ed. The pieces are falling in line now to end the collective deal - the foriegn owners don't have the same connection to the game. I don't think they understand the what the consequences will be.
 
Unread 04-04-2007, 08:30 AM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

On the collective TV, isn't it true Real madrid have got their own TV deal? And they've got the king's cash. And hey've got the pull of any number of the world's top players. They still lose pretty often and have done nothing much in Europe for half a decade.

I think United should be able to have their own TV deal - but that they should not be allowed to have exclusive rights to their own matches. In other words, they should be in a position where they sell their games to the TV companies as well as show them themselves. This way, assuming all the leading clubs did same (as they play each other a fair bit), their could still be some regulation over the collective package as far as availability and price structures go - CL to terrestrial and so on. Then again, maybe if United had their own exclusive rights they could afford to keep the prices down by sheer volume of uptake? I'll leave that last bit hanging for now
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Life under Malcolm Glazer
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malcolm Ebiowei AK14 Football 27 26-06-2022 07:20 PM
Malcolm Glazer is dead Clarkie Football 261 31-05-2014 02:32 PM
Malcolm Glazer dead lookingforeric Love United, Hate Glazer 3 28-05-2014 11:09 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 AM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.