Match Day Thread Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

I don't know how they could possibly conclude that he isn't a 'conscious racist'. No unqualified panel of 'independents' has the ability to do that let alone the power. A one off joke maybe could be put down to poor taste but a concerted effort to single out black and Muslim players can't be explained away as 'banter'. The only joke about this story is his punishment.

 

What? No Cheech?

 

A couple of decades ago, any “joke” regarding a player’s origin or race was dismissed as banter or humour. Anyone disagreeing or raising concern would be viewed as lacking humour or simply being difficult. The guy’s jokes reflect his attitude to the player’s background. To call it an unconscious racism is simply wrong and reflects badly on that panel. Who were the members ?

 

It's an independent panel so the names aren't familiar.

Robert Englehart KC
Matt Wild
Tony Agana

 

FFS

 

a lot of man's seem to think that the guy who wanted cheslea but failed will be amazing owner who will directly run man utd... like full time.

in for a disappointment if they think billionaires have time to **** up each of their businesses like Elon musk

maybe it's the sir that makes them think he's great, who knows.

 

For a Billionaire he's not been a free spending owner for Nice.

They've got some big name players who are probably getting high wages, but they've mainly been picked up on Free transfers or because the selling club wants rid.
The likes of Ramsay, Barkley and Schmeichel.

He's worth roughly £28billion, Ineos £61billion (but it's Radcliffe wanting to buy not Ineos)

Compare that to Newcastle's owners at £514billion. No idea about City or PSG as its 'companies' and 'investment groups', but its going to be similar as its the wealth of a nation rather than just a private company.

So I don't expect him to be chucking money at ManU anymore than the current owners.

 

Their current owners have spent something like £1b net over the last ten years so it's not a case of them not investing, it's more about the debt and money being taken out the club. Theoretically, they could afford to spend more and remain well with FFP

 

I will agree, with Radcliffe its his money. So the owner wouldn't be borrowing against the club.

However he is still isn't in the league of the likes of City, Newcastle and PSG

 

yeah but nice are nice.

28bil is a lot more welly than todd boehly but.... the man is a businessman. What i am hearing is manc fans expecting him to be totally different to glaziers, nor only in terms of not goughing the club but actually day to day.

billionaires do not have time for day to day.

Newcastle owners btw are saudi arabia. there is no number on paper that's limiting what they do over time. they are going to try keep under the radar and just buy well and lots and avoid the big headline "buying the league" splashes like psg did. They will then go full on sports washing and pretend it was all hard work

PSG, CIty.... there is no number, merely what can be got away with

 

My United friends, family, workmates and neighbours (yes, I have all of them) would just be happy if he re-built the stadium (that wouldn't affect FFP) and, most importantly, didn't drain off $2bn worth of the club's money in director wages and loan interest repayments. United don't need a sugar daddy - they just need somebody who doesn't use the club as a milch cow.

 

I think Man U are technically £bn in debt and need a new stadium. They need a fair amount of investment.

 

The debt can be incorporated into the sale price and written off without any impact on FFP, if the example of Chelsea is anything to go by.

 

the more reasoned people I'm sure would agree.

the reality is rebuilding old Trafford is a bit more complex than a lot realise so that will take a long time to figure.

not draining cash is a basic requirement for any owner and not a big ask for any fan imo.

whether he puts 1 billion into old toilet or not the club revenue WILL DROP during rebuild and the ffp rules will be impacted.

if you build a whole new ground then you can ignore it I suppose and if you had another 76k stadium.to rent you'd be OK.

my view is utd would need to tear down the full stand section to rebuild really properly or they are into tarting it up like fsg.

fsg have left some dogshit views in the main stand due to this compromise.

if manc s want a bigger spurs bowl then they need to tear it down and rebuild and rent off Everton or something so revenue will take a big hit for 2 seasons

 

chelsea are a special case though. the debt there was to the oligarch. who are utds debt with? banks?

if the term is 4bil for glaziers and 1 bil to banks then that's getting it down but if its 3 to glaziers I'm not so sure that will go through. #greedy

 

I don't think many United fans would be happy about driving into Liverpool for home games, even if it is to Everton with whom they have fairly good relations. I'd imagine somewhere like Bolton would be more palatable, yet would be a real step down on size.

It would all be temporary though wherever they go.

 

Surely they could use somewhere in London for the locals? Maybe Singapore?

 

go to Wembley as befits a prawn sandwich suarry bridge.

 

they could share with City at the City of Manchester Stadium.

 

they would probably love that as much as they would coming to Liverpool.

At least the stadium might get half full though.