Still still not worthy of a thread

[Stifler]

Dubai investment fund apparently interested in Man Utd. That might cause some ructions in the UAE.

[Groundhog63]

19 minutes ago, Rafalove said:

 

 

Because they have made terrible football decisions and taken a billion out the club. They could have done so much with that even if it was just putting money in to the local community, it would have been better than in the Glazers hands.

Aye, I get that bit. It's just, when you look at the money they actually have spent, albeit not their own, it's fortunes. 

It's not even as if they've been properly shit just overtaken by 5 other cubs. 

6 now, if you include us 😂

 

[LV]

49 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Dubai investment fund apparently interested in Man Utd. That might cause some ructions in the UAE.

Thought Dubai were brassic compared to Abu Dhabi 

[Stifler]

Just now, LV said:

Thought Dubai were brassic compared to Abu Dhabi 

I’m not so sure. All the urban development started in Dubai, and they still have the signature developments over Abu Dhabi. I don’t think their investment fund portfolio is as big as ours or Abu Dhabi’s, but they’ll still have enough to buy Man Utd if they wanted.

[LV]

Hopefully just enough to buy them but not enough to then do anything with them

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by LV

[LeeB]

5 minutes ago, LV said:

Thought Dubai were brassic compared to Abu Dhabi 

 

That's what I thought too.

 

Abu Dhabi had to bail them out and gave them the money to finish that big daft skyscraper.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by LeeB

[LV]

Just now, LeeB said:

 

That's what I thought too.

 

Abu Dhabi has to bail them out and gave them the money to finish that big daft skyscraper.

Yeah that’s what I remember too

[Miggys First Goal]

So Dubai are the Mike Ashley of public investment funds?

[Manxst]

If we’re talking investment funds, on the basis of nothing at all other than sheer wealth and Scandinavian support for the club, I’d imagine the Norwegian lot (the biggest in the world iirc?) might take an interest? 

[LeeB]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

If we’re talking investment funds, on the basis of nothing at all other than sheer wealth and Scandinavian support for the club, I’d imagine the Norwegian lot (the biggest in the world iirc?) might take an interest? 

 

I'm not sure that's the kind of thing they'd do with it.

 

Mad the size of it though, worth $250,000 per person in Norway. That's what you get by not flogging all your natural resources to private companies.

[Nobody]

So Ronaldo has been suspended two games for that mobile phone incident back in April. How nice of the FA to wait until he won't be playing for Man Utd any more to dish out this punishment. 

[Doctor Zaius]

4 hours ago, Groundhog63 said:

Man U "poet" on GMB haranguing the Glazers. 

I'm bemused why they're miffed tbh. 

They've spent a fortune, just badly in the end. 

I guess they're just a richer Ellis Short but reached the same conclusion. 

 

Remember when fans of other clubs used to tell us that we shouldnt have much to complain about with Ashley - he's made us financially stable, got rid of the debt, spent some money etc etc etc, well...

[Froggy]

1 hour ago, LV said:

Hopefully just enough to buy them but not enough to then do anything with them

 

 

 

 

We don't need money pumped in like other clubs do.

[Lenny]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

We don't need money pumped in like other clubs do.

Do you not need significant infrastructure investment?

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, Lenny said:

Do you not need significant infrastructure investment?

 

We do. City have spent close to £400m on infrastructure costs in the last 10 years and have state of the art facilities. The Glazers have leeched around £1.1b over the last 17 years.

 

The club generates more than enough money to bring facilities up to scratch and remain competitive in the transfer market as long as money isn't taken out by corrupt owners.

 

 

[Abacus]

32 minutes ago, Nobody said:

So Ronaldo has been suspended two games for that mobile phone incident back in April. How nice of the FA to wait until he won't be playing for Man Utd any more to dish out this punishment. 

 

They should make him play two more games instead.

[Groundhog63]

11 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

We do. City have spent close to £400m on infrastructure costs in the last 10 years and have state of the art facilities. The Glazers have leeched around £1.1b over the last 17 years.

 

The club generates more than enough money to bring facilities up to scratch and remain competitive in the transfer market as long as money isn't taken out by corrupt owners.

 

 

They're not corrupt tho. Just greedy and, ultimately, shit

[Groundhog63]

1 hour ago, LeeB said:

 

I'm not sure that's the kind of thing they'd do with it.

 

Mad the size of it though, worth $250,000 per person in Norway. That's what you get by not flogging all your natural resources to private companies.

Enough to get a round in? 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

They're not corrupt tho. Just greedy and, ultimately, shit

 

corrupt

/kəˈrʌpt/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

1.

having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

 

The Glazers are absolutely corrupt. 

[Abacus]

26 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

 

Remember when fans of other clubs used to tell us that we shouldnt have much to complain about with Ashley - he's made us financially stable, got rid of the debt, spent some money etc etc etc, well...

I mostly agree. 

 

But on the other hand, as well as taking money out, they have remorselessly grown Man U's commercial brand around the world at the same time.

 

One fan argument is that the club would be better off if they just spent their own money instead of paying some of it to the Glazers and also in debt interest. But on the other hand, it's the Glazers who helped build all that income in the first place, so they've taken money out from a bigger pot they've grown.

 

Give with one hand, take with the other.

 

Unlike Ashley, who not only took money away through sponsorships etc, but actively strangled the commercial side. I.e. he took with both hands.

 

I'm not arguing with your basic point, by the way. Just like their fans, I'd also have detested their ownership if it was us. I just don't think they are as calamitously bad as Ashley in terms of the long term damage they have caused.

 

Also, higher interest rates worldwide on a debt funded asset, where you've now got real competition for your TV money, in a likely future global recession ... yeah, a house of cards that ownership. No surprise to see them and FSG want to cut and run.

[Jackie Broon]

9 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

corrupt

/kəˈrʌpt/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

1.

having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

 

The Glazers are absolutely corrupt. 

 

You're not going to get much sympathy from supporters who had to put up with Mike Ashley for 14 years. I wouldn't call him corrupt, just a terrible owner.

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

You're not going to get much sympathy from supporters who had to put up with Mike Ashley for 14 years. I wouldn't call him corrupt, just a terrible owner.

 

I don't want any sympathy.  

 

It's my understanding Ashley lied through his teeth on numerous occasions and his lone goal was to line his pockets. That's corruption to me.

 

Both Ashley and The Glazers were capable of far worse if they were allowed to get away with it. Glazers would have sold the soul of our club to join the ESL.

[Jackie Broon]

35 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I don't want any sympathy.  

 

It's my understanding Ashley lied through his teeth on numerous occasions and his lone goal was to line his pockets. That's corruption to me.

 

Both Ashley and The Glazers were capable of far worse if they were allowed to get away with it. Glazers would have sold the soul of our club to join the ESL.

 

That's not corruption, its just cuntary and capitalism. Corruption in its normal use implies an illegal level of dishonesty for personal gain.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Jackie Broon

[LeeB]

38 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

Enough to get a round in? 

 

Based on my last trip to Oslo, if the round is small and no one asks for owt fancy, it might work out.

[wormy]

52 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I mostly agree. 

 

But on the other hand, as well as taking money out, they have remorselessly grown Man U's commercial brand around the world at the same time.

 

One fan argument is that the club would be better off if they just spent their own money instead of paying some of it to the Glazers and also in debt interest. But on the other hand, it's the Glazers who helped build all that income in the first place, so they've taken money out from a bigger pot they've grown.

 

Give with one hand, take with the other.

 

Unlike Ashley, who not only took money away through sponsorships etc, but actively strangled the commercial side. I.e. he took with both hands.

 

I'm not arguing with your basic point, by the way. Just like their fans, I'd also have detested their ownership if it was us. I just don't think they are as calamitously bad as Ashley in terms of the long term damage they have caused.

 

Also, higher interest rates worldwide on a debt funded asset, where you've now got real competition for your TV money, in a likely future global recession ... yeah, a house of cards that ownership. No surprise to see them and FSG want to cut and run.

 

I certainly haven't cared enough to look at the figures but could Man U's commercial growth not be in spite of the Glazers rather than because of it? Like with NUFC, our overall income figures may have looked better than x number of years ago under Ashley but looking at the raw number wouldn't take in to account the fact income football as a whole grew to an insane amount in that time. So rather than it being Ashley/Glazers that built that, they just lucked in to the same, or maybe even smaller, piece of what became by default a bigger pie in general?

 

Not discounting what you're saying, genuinely interested in anything that indicates what the Glazer's did for the profile of the club couldn't have been replicated by people with less money but more brains. But again, too lazy to research/understand it myself.