Toggle sidebar

Manchester United partial sale completed: Sir Jim era

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Savant said:
The funny thing is the perfect owners for Utd would have been FSG; but the Utd fans wouldn’t have stood (even less so than the LFC fans) for the lack of transfer activity if that was the trade off.
Click to expand...
I'm unsure why you think FSG would provide less transfer activity to United.

The Glazers have provided far, far less funding to United than FSG have to Liverpool. United just make far more than Liverpool do so they have a lot more to toss around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jussi
hatterson said:
I'm unsure why you think FSG would provide less transfer activity to United.

The Glazers have provided far, far less funding to United than FSG have to Liverpool. United just make far more than Liverpool do so they have a lot more to toss around.
Click to expand...
I mean where is the evidence that they would have? If anything FSG would have prioritized fixing United’s rotting infrastructure; especially put money into fixing Old Trafford which is falling apart. United fans would be taking out the Norwich scarves though if they weren’t getting transfers. FSG model has largely been to keep net spend in check (with some obvious, but uncommon, exceptions). I don’t think that changes on a different team
 
Last edited:
Savant said:
I mean where is the evidence that they would have? If anything FSG would have prioritized fixing United’s rotting infrastructure; especially put money into fixing Old Trafford which is falling apart. United fans would be taking out the Norwich scarves though if they weren’t getting transfers. FSG model has largely been to keep net spend in check (with some obvious, but uncommon, exceptions). I don’t think that changes on a different team
Click to expand...
The evidence is that FSG has actually put money into Liverpool (albeit not remotely as much as Chelsea or City obviously) whereas the Glazers have taken hundreds of millions out of United.

Under the same amount of net owner investment that FSG has put into Liverpool, they could have spent a few hundred million revamping infrastructure and stadium stuff and still maintained the same level of net transfer spending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jussi
hatterson said:
The evidence is that FSG has actually put money into Liverpool (albeit not remotely as much as Chelsea or City obviously) whereas the Glazers have taken hundreds of millions out of United.

Under the same amount of net owner investment that FSG has put into Liverpool, they could have spent a few hundred million revamping infrastructure and stadium stuff and still maintained the same level of net transfer spending.
Click to expand...
But they didn’t.

I’m saying that the Utd fans would not have stood for only the infrastructure upgrades if they weren’t getting transfers (going as over net spend as they currently) too
 
Savant said:
But they didn’t.

I’m saying that the Utd fans would not have stood for only the infrastructure upgrades if they weren’t getting transfers (going as over net spend as they currently) too
Click to expand...
Except there's no reason they wouldn't have got infrastructure upgrades as well.

FSG has, on net, put money into Liverpool. The Glazers have, on net, taken a boatload of money out of United.

If the Glazers had the same level of net investment in United as FSG have had in Liverpool, United could have maintained the identical level of transfer activity they already did and *also* had several hundred million dollars just floating around to upgrade infrastructure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jussi
hatterson said:
Except there's no reason they wouldn't have got infrastructure upgrades as well.

FSG has, on net, put money into Liverpool. The Glazers have, on net, taken a boatload of money out of United.

If the Glazers had the same level of net investment in United as FSG have had in Liverpool, United could have maintained the identical level of transfer activity they already did and *also* had several hundred million dollars just floating around to upgrade infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Do you think Utd fans would accept only having the infrastructure approved if it meant less incoming high profile expensive signings?
 
hatterson said:
Do you think Liverpool fans would have been happy with FSG literally burning cash in front of the stadium instead of buying players?

See look I can make up things that have no basis in reality either.
Click to expand...
I think asking if fans would be willing to sacrifice player signings for infrastructure improvements is certainly a fair question
 
From Redcafe:

Fairytale of Ten Hag

It was Christmas Eve Jim,
Down at Carrington,
Murtagh says to me, we won’t see another one.

And then he sang a song,
You’re getting sacked tomorrow,
I turned my face away, and dreamed of the Eredivise..

Got on a lucky one,
Lost by two goals to one,
I’ve got a feeling, this year we’ll be top four,
So happy Christmas,
I love you Jimmy
I can see a better time
When all our dreams come true..

They've got pace, they've got Sheikhs, dodgy rivers I'm told,
And the teams pass right through, it's no place for the old,
When you first came along to the Premier League,
You promised me glory was waiting for me.

You were handsome, you were pretty
King of Amsterdam City
When Jong finished playing they’d be howling for more,
Fletcher was grinning and Murtough was singing
Arnold watched on from his local bar..

The boys of the New York Stock Exchange are chasing a payday,

And the bells are ringing out for the close of trade.

The boys in the MUFC squad are downing tools again,

And the fans keep turning up,
For groundhog day..
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Jussi said:
www.manutd.com

Club statement

Sir Jim Ratcliffe to acquire up to a 25% shareholding in Manchester United.
www.manutd.com www.manutd.com

Click to expand...

I’m not sure how much of this is the fact that the request came from the board and the fact that it’s ultimately the boards responsibility to divvy up this stuff, so regardless of who had the idea they have to be the ones to assign/request that responsibility be taken.

Basically “accepted the boards request” feels far more like corporate board talk talk than an actual description of who initiated it.
 


OFFICIAL: Manchester City can confirm Omar Berrada has resigned from his role as chief football operations officer at City Football Group.

Berrada will join Manchester United as new CEO. Decision made as he informed #MCFC during talks, as per @David_Ornstein.
Click to expand...

Omar's coming, yo!

:eek2:
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: luiginb
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom