Manchester United

[Cronky]

4 minutes ago, Thomson Mouse said:

Would love it if the Glazers didn’t sell. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of cunts. 

My impression is they would like to keep a sizeable holding but are seeking a partner to provide further investment. Ratcliffe might agree to that. The Qataris won’t, and are fed up with waiting.

[TRon]

52 minutes ago, McCormick said:

If Ffp wasn’t a thing you could buy a league 1 side and take it to the Champions’ League with 6 billion and still have change .

 

I suppose that's the whole point of FFP though, to stop that ever happening again.

[WilliamPS]

A change of ownership likely triggers all the debt being due, and would make more sense for the Qataris to pay it off than to borrow again and pay interest when they have cash

 

But if the takeover and debt clearing lets them spray cash everywhere is yet another pisstake of the ‘fair’ in FFP

[El Prontonise]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I suppose that's the whole point of FFP though, to stop that ever happening again.

 

Which is crap because it maintains the status quo of the top clubs.

[McCormick]

We all know that’s what it was introduced to do.

[Froggy]

https://theathletic.com/5382758/2024/04/02/manchester-united-greenwood-getafe-transfer-contract/

 

Genuine question that I'm going to stick in here to stop a potentially sour debate raging in other threads, but how would you expect your club to deal with this from now? I know we handled it all terribly in the past, but I mean from this summer onwards.

 

His contract runs out in 2025. We can extend for a year. There seems to be an expectation that we just let it run down and let him go for free. FFP is so important now and Greenwood is a sellable, pure profit asset.

 

If this situation had happened at Newcastle, would you want his contract extended and him to be sold this summer, or just let it expire next summer instead? 

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, Froggy said:

https://theathletic.com/5382758/2024/04/02/manchester-united-greenwood-getafe-transfer-contract/

 

Genuine question that I'm going to stick in here to stop a potentially sour debate raging in other threads, but how would you expect your club to deal with this from now? I know we handled it all terribly in the past, but I mean from this summer onwards.

 

His contract runs out in 2025. We can extend for a year. There seems to be an expectation that we just let it run down and let him go for free. FFP is so important now and Greenwood is a sellable, pure profit asset.

 

If this situation had happened at Newcastle, would you want his contract extended and him to be sold this summer, or just let it expire next summer instead? 

Our situation is different to yours though. We are absolutely stifled by FFP, and say if Longstaff came out as doing similar it’s arguably more important to us to get some sort of fee for him.

Irregardless, I wouldn’t him playing for us again.

 

You on the other hand are able to take hit off him.

[SteV]

8 minutes ago, Froggy said:

https://theathletic.com/5382758/2024/04/02/manchester-united-greenwood-getafe-transfer-contract/

 

Genuine question that I'm going to stick in here to stop a potentially sour debate raging in other threads, but how would you expect your club to deal with this from now? I know we handled it all terribly in the past, but I mean from this summer onwards.

 

His contract runs out in 2025. We can extend for a year. There seems to be an expectation that we just let it run down and let him go for free. FFP is so important now and Greenwood is a sellable, pure profit asset.

 

If this situation had happened at Newcastle, would you want his contract extended and him to be sold this summer, or just let it expire next summer instead? 

Anything other than just cutting him loose is an absolutely horrific look, regardless of FFP.

 

Extending and then selling even worse.

 

It would make the persistent cries from Man Utd fans of ‘blood money’ directed at Man City, and, to a far lesser extent, ourselves, seem somewhat ironic. 

[Froggy]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Our situation is different to yours though. We are absolutely stifled by FFP, and say if Longstaff came out as doing similar it’s arguably more important to us to get some sort of fee for him.

Irregardless, I wouldn’t him playing for us again.

 

You on the other hand are able to take hit off him.

 

I don't think we are. We've needed players the last couple of January transfer windows and haven't been able to afford them.

 

Bear in mind that the Glazers are paying the Raine group £24.3m for facilitating the SJR deal, and we also owe £10m in professional fees for the same transaction. Losses all over the shop. 

 

We're extremely close to the £105m loss threshold for FFP.

[gbandit]

Wouldn’t want to get a fee off him, wouldn’t want to lose out on ridiculous financial regulations. Genuinely don’t know what I’d want other than him nowhere near our club ever again 

[Kid Icarus]

For a few big reasons, you let him run down the contract and release him. Anything made from a sale comes with an offset of losses through negative PR anyway and that's before getting onto how it should be a moral obligation for a club the size and with the history of Man United to bin him. Anything less than that and they've deliberately dragged the club's reputation through the mud forever.

 

There'll be plenty who think he should be sold to another club, but I think that's partly the reason why you shouldn't do it. Without getting into how it implicitly sets a precedent for normalising and excusing what he did (and for some people how it excuses it explicitly), this whole 'it's business at the end of the day' outlook is a normalisation of money, business, profit, compete at all costs, which is just as dangerous and toxic imo.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2024 by Kid Icarus

[Froggy]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

For a few big reasons, you let him run down the contract and release him. Anything made from a sale comes with an offset of losses through negative PR anyway and that's before getting onto how it should be a moral obligation for a club the size and with the history of Man United to bin him. Anything less than that and they've deliberately dragged the club's reputation through the mud forever.

 

There'll be plenty who think he should be sold to another club, but I think that's partly the reason why you shouldn't do it. Without getting into how it implicitly sets a precedent for normalising and excusing what he did (and for some people how it excuses it explicitly), this whole 'it's business at the end of the day' outlook is a normalisation of money, business, profit, compete at all costs, which is just as dangerous and toxic imo.

 

Aye perfectly put.

 

Didn't like Ratcliffes comments in that (stupid) interview regarding this. I really hope once he gets the executive structure in place that he isn't in charge of footballing matters and it'll be left up to Berrada/Ashworth etc. The way he was talking was like he was open to bringing him back into the squad never mind extending his contract.

 

We should be cutting ties this summer IMO. 

[Kid Icarus]

Should also say that I think it's bad enough that there are people at Man United who even thought this was a conundrum that needed to be worked out and shows just how low the profit motive makes people go.

 

'They'd sell their own granny' seems like a fairly mild expression.

[Froggy]

42 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Should also say that I think it's bad enough that there are people at Man United who even thought this was a conundrum that needed to be worked out and shows just how low the profit motive makes people go.

 

'They'd sell their own granny' seems like a fairly mild expression.

 

Richard Arnold was bringing him back into the team. 100%. Ten Hag was clearly open to it as well, and has previous supporting Overmars at Ajax. 

 

We do ourselves no favours. 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2024 by Froggy

[gbandit]

Ten Hag strikes me very much as a “facts and figures” man. If it’s logical to bring him back because he’s a good footballer / logical to sell because hes a good footballer, he’d push for that. Wonder what Ferguson would have done. Keegan would have ran him out of town without a second thought

[Froggy]

14 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Ten Hag strikes me very much as a “facts and figures” man. If it’s logical to bring him back because he’s a good footballer / logical to sell because hes a good footballer, he’d push for that. Wonder what Ferguson would have done. Keegan would have ran him out of town without a second thought

 

Fergie was definitely a "the club comes first" kind of manager. I'd day if he had a cracking player on his hands he'd try to stop things from going public first mind. Once bad news got out then he'd cut ties IMO.

[joeyt]

24 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Richard Arnold was bringing him back into the team. 100%. Ten Hag was clearly open to it as well, and has previous supporting Overmars at Ajax. 

 

We do ourselves no favours. 

 

 

 

 

Do you think there's still a small chance he'll play for you again?

 

Or do you think the protests last time will continue to prevent your hierarchy from even trying it?

 

Obviously he shouldn't be playing for yous but do wonder if they might test the waters again to see if they can try and brush it under the carpet

[Froggy]

Just now, joeyt said:

 

Do you think there's still a small chance he'll play for you again?

 

Or do you think the protests last time will continue to prevent your hierarchy from even trying it?

 

Obviously he shouldn't be playing for yous but do wonder if they might test the waters again to see if they can try and brush it under the carpet

 

Zero chance he plays for us again. The decision will be whether or not to cash in on him. 

 

Funny enough the position we're arguably weakest at is Greenwood's position.

[Dr Jinx]

The correct thing to have done would have been to terminate his contract. I’m sure there would have been some sort of insurance the club could have claimed.

 

What they have done essentially loaning him out with different wording and taking a “let’s see how it goes” approach was a massive own goal.

 

No doubting there’s a player in there but it sends a terrible message that basically if you’re a wealthy young player you can do pretty much what you want and there won’t be any major consequences.

 

If it was a Newcastle player and situation replicated here, I’d have exactly the same opinion, regardless of our FFP position.

 

Some things are more important.

[leffe186]

52 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Should also say that I think it's bad enough that there are people at Man United who even thought this was a conundrum that needed to be worked out and shows just how low the profit motive makes people go.

 

'They'd sell their own granny' seems like a fairly mild expression.

Tbf, Stifler’s first reaction was that Man U could afford to just cut ties while you guys have less financial room to manoeuvre. Every club will have people putting forward the financial argument. It’s sometimes just important to do the right thing and that’s hopefully what will win out.

 

I do think that the negative PR doesn’t matter as much as we would like. Having a Russian oligarch/kleptocrat throw money at a club was horrible to watch from outside but Chelsea fans by and large loved it and they got tons of new fans. We’ve already seen a significant number of Newcastle fans on this board saying “fuck it, let us just spend whatever we want”. If you’re successful you can just bludgeon on through. It’s harder when it’s just one player, but we’ve already seen Antony play on with any pushback dwindling. And isn’t his case similar - accusations but no charges? (Genuine question, I’ve not been following either story closely).

[Kid Icarus]

19 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Tbf, Stifler’s first reaction was that Man U could afford to just cut ties while you guys have less financial room to manoeuvre. Every club will have people putting forward the financial argument. It’s sometimes just important to do the right thing and that’s hopefully what will win out.

 

I do think that the negative PR doesn’t matter as much as we would like. Having a Russian oligarch/kleptocrat throw money at a club was horrible to watch from outside but Chelsea fans by and large loved it and they got tons of new fans. We’ve already seen a significant number of Newcastle fans on this board saying “fuck it, let us just spend whatever we want”. If you’re successful you can just bludgeon on through. It’s harder when it’s just one player, but we’ve already seen Antony play on with any pushback dwindling. And isn’t his case similar - accusations but no charges? (Genuine question, I’ve not been following either story closely).

 

Not sure, but as much as I agree in general, I think the degree of separation there is with Abramovic and our owners makes it easier to ignore than in the Greenwood situation where he's been recorded raping his gf and we've all heard it. 

[Stifler]

26 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Tbf, Stifler’s first reaction was that Man U could afford to just cut ties while you guys have less financial room to manoeuvre. Every club will have people putting forward the financial argument. It’s sometimes just important to do the right thing and that’s hopefully what will win out.

 

I do think that the negative PR doesn’t matter as much as we would like. Having a Russian oligarch/kleptocrat throw money at a club was horrible to watch from outside but Chelsea fans by and large loved it and they got tons of new fans. We’ve already seen a significant number of Newcastle fans on this board saying “fuck it, let us just spend whatever we want”. If you’re successful you can just bludgeon on through. It’s harder when it’s just one player, but we’ve already seen Antony play on with any pushback dwindling. And isn’t his case similar - accusations but no charges? (Genuine question, I’ve not been following either story closely).

I also said that I’d want him nowhere near the club as well. It depends on what side I’m looking at it. From a fans point of view, out and never darken our door again.

If I’m on the board the moral in me wants him out, but the clubs needs requires me to get something financially out of it, be that through insurance, or even compensation via the player himself if that’s even possible, or to a lesser extent, a transfer fee.

[leffe186]

26 minutes ago, Stifler said:

I also said that I’d want him nowhere near the club as well. It depends on what side I’m looking at it. From a fans point of view, out and never darken our door again.

If I’m on the board the moral in me wants him out, but the clubs needs requires me to get something financially out of it, be that through insurance, or even compensation via the player himself if that’s even possible, or to a lesser extent, a transfer fee.

Oh yeah, I was just making the point that it wasn’t just Man U who have people thinking the financial factors might play a part.

[SteV]

Their worst performance of the PL era tonight?

[Turnbull2000]

3 minutes ago, SteV said:

Their worst performance of the PL era tonight?

 

Liverpool beat them 7-0 last year. Been some hilarious scorelines ,but the fuckers could still finish above us and bag a trophy this season.