Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

The Muppet · 08-03-2010 01:50PM

lordgoat wrote: »

prolonged instability is exactly what we have at the moment, if you took your head out of your arse (it's probably been there since 19dickity two) you'd probably realise that.

As kryogen pointed out it's your dismissal of the fact that the future of our club is in serous debt that pisses people off and the fact you put some misplaced status in the fact you are older than other poster that piss alot of people off.

Well if what we've experienced since the Glazers took over is instability I'm happy with that.

I replied to a post insinuating I was a glory hunter supporter , I don't see why that should piss anyone off with the possible exceptionof the person i replied to for making the insinuation in the first place. What I said is true If the truth rankls, tough.

keane2097 · 08-03-2010 01:51PM

The Muppet wrote: »

Well if what we've experienced since the Glazers took over is instability I'm happy with that.

I replied to a post insinuating I was a glory hunter supporter , I don't see why that should piss anyone off with the possible exceptionof the person i replied to for making the insinuation in the first place. What I said is true.

Of course you are - that's why you're a glory hunter.

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:01PM

in other news, what do people think if Rooney isnt 100% for Wednesday? im leaning towrds leaving him out again to not risk further injury, for me the league is the priority as always though and i want him 100% for that, others have different views?

Boggles · 08-03-2010 02:02PM

kryogen wrote: »

in other news, what do people think if Rooney isnt 100% for Wednesday? im leaning towrds leaving him out again to not risk further injury, for me the league is the priority as always though and i want him 100% for that, others have different views?

Same view as Fergie.

Rooney for the league.

Diouf and Berbs up top against Milan.

Mars Bar · 08-03-2010 02:04PM

kryogen wrote: »

in other news, what do people think if Rooney isnt 100% for Wednesday? im leaning towrds leaving him out again to not risk further injury, for me the league is the priority as always though and i want him 100% for that, others have different views?

I have a different view coz it's going to be the first time I see United play and I want our best player on the Godamn pitch! :mad:

In all seriousness though, if it means a serious risk to him then I'd be just as happy to see him on the bench.

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:05PM

Boggles wrote: »

Same view as Fergie.

Rooney for the league.

Diouf and Berbs up top against Milan.

has Fergie said that?

thats a load off my mind if so

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 02:05PM

Boggles wrote: »

Same view as Fergie.

Rooney for the league.

Diouf and Berbs up top against Milan.

no way will we go 2 up top vs Milan imo. 5 in midfield, Nani, Scholes, Park, Fletcher, Valencia. IMO.

Boggles · 08-03-2010 02:07PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

no way will we go 2 up top vs Milan imo. 5 in midfield, Nani, Scholes, Park, Fletcher, Valencia. IMO.

1 up top at home.

/Spit!!!

:mad:

SlickRic · 08-03-2010 02:09PM

Boggles wrote: »

Diouf and Berbs up top against Milan.

should be more than enough.

Milan looked toothless enough against Roma at the weekend from what i saw.

Berba is playing well too, so it shouldn't be a problem.

it'll be all about the middle of the park. Scholes to play? Fletcher to do the donkey work and Scholes to dictate play?

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:10PM

just came across this

Sam Wallace: Manchester United fans should look long and hard at spin and promises of City slickers

Claims the Red Knights had Ferguson's support may show they are fighting a dirty war

Monday, 8 March 2010
AP

The empty spin of the Red Knights would probably find a welcome home in David Cameron's Conservative Party

There is something about this group of bankers, PR men and publicity-hungry City types who call themselves, in preposterous fashion, the "Red Knights" that reminds me of the current group of bankers, PR men and publicity- hungry City types who make up the altogether preposterous Conservative Party.

Like the Conservatives, those who claim to speak on behalf of the Red Knights are not slow to tell us that those they seek to replace are utterly useless. For the Labour government read the Glazer family, whose £709.5m debt, we all know, is imperiling the future of Manchester United.

The Red Knights' mantra really is no different to the Tories' "We can't go on like this" refrain, to which the answer, in both cases, is plainly: "Yes, we know that, but how about telling us exactly what you plan to do?" In fact, in the case of the Red Knights, it is a struggle to get one individual to admit publicly to his involvement.

This is not intended to belittle the basic principle that United need to be free of the Glazers. We can all see that. The bond issue document that the Glazers issued in January was as heartbreaking a piece of corporate literature as you will ever read, offering up stadium, training ground and even players to serve the debt.

But however despairing that makes United fans feel, it by no means obliges them to go running into the arms of the Red Knights without doing due diligence first. If anything, the Glazer experience at Old Trafford should make those United fans' groups who are being courted by these would-be rescuers even more cautious.

So far the Red Knights have operated in the shadows and the unattributed claims yesterday that they had the secret support of Sir Alex Ferguson, despite his vehement denials, were the clearest indication yet that they could be fighting a dirty war.

Even the name Red Knights invites us to assume that they are automatically the good guys. The concept of Red Knights is a thrillingly ingenious play on the myth of white knights who, of course, always ride to the rescue of those in distress. The PR firm really earned their money there.

The executive types of the City love to make themselves sound more glamorous with monikers such as these. Just for the hell of it some of them have pictures of footballers on their office walls and proclaim themselves "footy mad". They give interviews to the business pages in which they compare themselves to football managers and even take their ties off when they go to games.

It is all very heart-warming that people such as Jim O'Neill, the putative head of the Red Knights, is so willing to share with us his Moss Side childhood and passion for United, but that does not really answer the basic question. How would his consortium offer a stable alternative to the Glazers?

What O'Neill seems to be proposing is a collective fund of anything up to £1.5bn which is made up of, according to some reports, as many as 60 investors, at least one of which could put up as much as £600m. It presupposes an extraordinary alliance of rich, powerful people all of them used to having their own way, yet all pulling together for an institution that may never return them any profit.

We have heard so much about the so-called Red Knights' impeccable financial acumen and their genius for tapping the emerging markets. What we have not been told is how they plan to unite this disparate group of investors; a job that sounds about as challenging as shepherding the mid-1980s United team out of the pub at closing time.

It is for this reason that United fans' groups, who have given so much of their time and energy to opposing and exposing the Glazers, need to think very carefully before they decide to back this particular horse.

In the Financial Times on Saturday, a source close to the Red Knights was quoted on the subject of the Glazers hiking ticket prices at Old Trafford in order to pay down the debt. He said: "To apply private equity principles to lower income levels of society is completely inappropriate. It is very harsh on these people."

Hang on a minute. The very principle of private equity is borrowing money to buy companies, cutting costs (which roughly translates as "sacking people"), using the cash-flow to pay the debts and selling the entity on for a profit. Goldman Sachs, for whom O'Neill is the chief economist, has a private equity department which, among other deals, was part of a 2002 buy-out of Burger King whose staff are regarded as low-income.

Are we to believe that those men among the Red Knights who have dedicated their lives to pursuing the margins of profit have suddenly been overcome by brotherly love for the average Stretford Ender with a season ticket and a terraced house in Urmston?

The current recession alone should tell fans that when it comes to the world of British finance there is no reason to tug on forelocks and defer to "thems-what-knows-better". There is no cause to be blinded by the glittering write-ups that the likes of O'Neill have been given by his more star-struck acolytes or those other Red Knights from institutions such as Freshfields and Saatchi & Saatchi.

As for Keith Harris, the Red Knights' stockbroker who spends as much time being interviewed as he does raising finance, his call to arms for United fans to cancel season tickets and boycott matches should be treated very carefully. The Manchester United Supporters' Trust, the largest of the fans' groups, has not yet endorsed that nuclear option, which could yet do extreme damage to the club.

That is why it is understandable when United's chief executive, David Gill, reacts with anger to the Red Knights, a group that have managed that age-old political trick of winning prestige without actually doing anything. Gill opposed the Glazer takeover as long as his legal obligations as a director permitted and since then he has run United as best he can under the debt.

He deals in the reality of the situation, which is keeping United afloat under an unfavourable regime. Like the Tories, the Red Knights are very good at imagining how they would ride to the rescue but they should explain how that works in reality before they are granted the endorsement of the fans.

Raises some good points for anyone who is being swayed by the hype

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 02:11PM

Boggles wrote: »

1 up top at home.

/Spit!!!

:mad:

I don't particularly like it, but it is Europe, vs a very experienced side, I don't see Fergie 'going for it' especially if Rooney is not available. I am near certain he wouldn't start Diouf in such a game if Rooney is out. Owen, I could see starting if he was fit, but I just can't see Diouf getting the nod on wednesday.

I reckon 451, hoping to catch Milan on the break (which will be difficult cause that is not the type of game berbatov plays)

My guess at the team is:

VDS

Raf--Rio--Vidic--Evra

--Fletch--Scholes--Park
Valencia

Nani

berbatov.

Pro. F · 08-03-2010 02:22PM

The Muppet wrote: »

It'll blow a pretty big hole in the "we haven't a pot to piss in" brigades argument if true and hopefully put an end to the scaremongering.

The Muppet wrote: »

Yada Yada Yada.

Who Gives a **** , the manager getting the support and funds he needs is all fans should be concerned about, once that continues to happen most supporters will be happy.

It's more likely to be Ronaldo money, you know the money your lot say the Glazers bled from the club, I hope it happens, I look forward to having something to talk about if it does.

Boggles wrote: »

To be honest I can't see how there can be any doubt that the cash is not there.

Few reasons.

As much as people like to think that the Glazers are the spawn of satan, they arn't. They are incredibly intelligent businessmen who arn't naive enough to think that Brand United will prosper without signing good players.

If all the reports are true, the Yanks can earn a fortune from the takeover of the Red Knights, if they decline it proves to me anyways they are in it for the long run.

Fergie has said on numerous occasions that he has money.

Fergie tried to buy Benzema, enquired about Ribery and offered 20 million for Tevez and a massive contract.

In the past 6 months we have signed Owen, Valencia, Obertan, Smalling and a few other young fellas, - thats 30 million at a conservative estimate there.

Oh my fùck! You two are the very definition of delusional. I cannot believe that this argument is still going on. Your bullshìt optimism relating to the club finances has been proven wrong by the club itself. The fact that ye are still on here talking this crap is laughable.

For both your information:
When the bonds were sold a few months ago the club circulated a prospectus of the club's financial situation for prospective buyers. It stated that THERE IS NO MONEY FOR PLAYER PURCHASES, THERE IS ONLY AN OVERDRAFT FACILITY AVAILABLE.

If we do have a net spend on players this summer, which imo is a definite possibility, we will have only added to the already incredibly burdensom debt on the club.

Mars Bar · 08-03-2010 02:25PM

Pro. F wrote: »

Oh my fùck! You two are the very definition of delusional. I cannot believe that this argument is still going on. You're bullshìt optimism relating to the club finances has been proven wrong by the club itself. The fact that ye are still on here talking this crap is laughable.

For both your information:
When the bonds were sold a few months ago the club circulated a prospectus of the club's financial situation for prospective buyers. It stated that THERE IS NO MONEY FOR PLAYER PURCHASES, THERE IS ONLY AN OVERDRAFT FACILITY AVAILABLE.

If we do have a net spend on players this summer, which imo is a definite possibility, we will have only added to the already incredibly burdensom debt on the club.

Hallelujah and Amen!

Nalz · 08-03-2010 02:25PM

HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY WERE THE GLAZERS ALLOWED PURCHASE THE CLUB?

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:25PM

it has been reported that those people the super agent represented have been told to bog off

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11667_6009561,00.html

Sky Sports News understands two billionaires from South Asia were prepared to make a ₤1billion offer for Manchester United, but were told the Glazer family was unwilling to sell.

Zahavi represents Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand and has close links with the club.

But the billionaires, who have not been named but are 'huge Manchester United supporters', were told the Glazers 'were not willing to hear offers'.

It is believed the potential investors provided proof of funds in a Swiss bank account.

The investors have no involvement with the 'Red Knights' consortium who revealed their own takeover plans last week.

Zahavi was involved in Roman Abramovich's surprise takeover at Chelsea in 2003.

last october apparently

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 02:28PM

Trilla wrote: »

HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY WERE THE GLAZERS ALLOWED PURCHASE THE CLUB?

cause that is the way capitalism works. Once enough people were willing to sell at the right price, they could buy. the board rejected their approach initially stating that the business plan was unworkable. They couldn't actually stop them though.

lordgoat · 08-03-2010 02:29PM

I dislike that Isralian (sp!) alot.

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:29PM

Trilla wrote: »

HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY WERE THE GLAZERS ALLOWED PURCHASE THE CLUB?

it was on the stock market

re Brown:

LONDON (Reuters) - Manchester United and England defender Wes Brown will know later on Monday whether a foot injury he sustained on Saturday at Wolverhampton Wanderers will dent his chances of playing in the World Cup finals.

Brown was replaced at halftime in United's 1-0 win at Wolves and left Molineux with his foot in a protective boot after a tackle with midfielder Matthew Jarvis.

Brown, who broke a metatarsal just over a year ago, won his 23rd cap for England against Egypt last Wednesday and is expected to be in Fabio Capello's squad for the World Cup in three months' time.

However, if test results show he has broken another metatarsal, he faces a race against time to be fit for South Africa.

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 02:29PM

kryogen wrote: »

it has been reported that those people the super agent represented have been told to bog off

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11667_6009561,00.html

Sky Sports News understands two billionaires from South Asia were prepared to make a ₤1billion offer for Manchester United, but were told the Glazer family was unwilling to sell.

Zahavi represents Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand and has close links with the club.

But the billionaires, who have not been named but are 'huge Manchester United supporters', were told the Glazers 'were not willing to hear offers'.

It is believed the potential investors provided proof of funds in a Swiss bank account.

The investors have no involvement with the 'Red Knights' consortium who revealed their own takeover plans last week.

Zahavi was involved in Roman Abramovich's surprise takeover at Chelsea in 2003.

last october apparently

Thought that may have been the case alright. I did hear about the two rejected bids last week, and thought one of them might have been the bid Zahavi was supposed to be fronting.

ROCKMAN · 08-03-2010 02:29PM

My own personal opinion ,

They're far to many people too willing to except the so called Red Knights as the great saviours of the club , And we will all go dancing off into a bright rosie future together .
Personally i'd like to see a writing/ detailed long term plan before [sorry if one exists ,link please] they would take control .
yes I know at the moment they are making all the right sounds , but so do politicians pre-elections .

As for all these financial facts/reports etc etc I'm with Boggles its all a bit over my head .

Edit just seen kryogen's Sam Wallace post , what I'm trying to say , but better.

..

Spud83 · 08-03-2010 02:32PM

It will definitely be one up top against Milan. Clean sheet and we go through, lose one nil and we go through. That will be the message to the players, keep a clean sheet, and keep the ball.

No need for us to go chasing the game and giving Milan belief.

Mikeyt086 · 08-03-2010 02:34PM

Trilla wrote: »

HOW DID IT COME TO THIS, WHY WERE THE GLAZERS ALLOWED PURCHASE THE CLUB?

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:35PM

Spud83 wrote: »

It will definitely be one up top against Milan. Clean sheet and we go through, lose one nil and we go through. That will be the message to the players, keep a clean sheet, and keep the ball.

No need for us to go chasing the game and giving Milan belief.

id expect the same tbh

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 02:36PM

ROCKMAN wrote: »

My own personal opinion ,

They're far to many people too willing to except the so called Red Knights as the great saviours of the club , And we will all go dancing off into a bright rosie future together .
Personally i'd like to see a writing/ detailed long term plan before [sorry if one exists ,link please] they would take control .
yes I know at the moment they are making all the right sounds , but so do politicians pre-elections .

As for all these financial facts/reports etc etc I'm with Boggles its all a bit over my head .

I am with you on the Red Knight stuff. I do want to hear more about them and their plans before I would support them (not that my personal support matters in anyway!)

Right now, I am happy to support MUST in the protests against the current direction United is taking - while I don't know about the Red Knights, I know I am not happy with how the Glazers are currently conducting business.

It is a fact that they have turned a club that was very profitable (even when making large scale player purchases) into one that returns losses or poor profits. The fincial returns we got last year, including the Ronaldo sale and half the AON sponsorship money post something like a 40million profit. that simply isn't good enough, not by a long shot imo.

As I have said previously, if the Glazers would use some of their personal wealth or assets to pay off the debt that they alone created (or at least a good chunk of it) I would be happy enough, but they show no signs nor any interest in doing this. It is disgusting.

redout · 08-03-2010 02:36PM

Pato has been included in the Milan squad.

Mitch Connor · 08-03-2010 02:37PM

redout wrote: »

Pato has been included in the Milan squad.

bugger.

JimsAlterEgo · 08-03-2010 02:39PM

kryogen wrote: »

id expect the same tbh

wouldn't be at all shocked at a 0-0

Nalz · 08-03-2010 02:42PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

cause that is the way capitalism works. Once enough people were willing to sell at the right price, they could buy. the board rejected their approach initially stating that the business plan was unworkable. They couldn't actually stop them though.

I'm just surprised there wasn't a more stable buyer at the time

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

indeed

kryogen · 08-03-2010 02:44PM

id be surprised if its a 0-0 game, but id take the hand off someone who offered it!

Pato being included is kinda a meh point to me, i think we need a goal, if we score the tie is over imo.

cannot see how Milan would score 3 at OT, if they do they deserve to go through, we dont if we conceed 3

The Muppet · 08-03-2010 03:07PM

Pro. F wrote: »

Oh my fùck! You two are the very definition of delusional. I cannot believe that this argument is still going on. Your bullshìt optimism relating to the club finances has been proven wrong by the club itself. The fact that ye are still on here talking this crap is laughable.

For both your information:
When the bonds were sold a few months ago the club circulated a prospectus of the club's financial situation for prospective buyers. It stated that THERE IS NO MONEY FOR PLAYER PURCHASES, THERE IS ONLY AN OVERDRAFT FACILITY AVAILABLE.

If we do have a net spend on players this summer, which imo is a definite possibility, we will have only added to the already incredibly burdensom debt on the club.

Nobodys denying the debt, I'd rather we didn't have it but where we differ is that some of you think it's out of control and will lead to the demise of the club, I'm not there yet.

Nobody's answered any of the questions re these take over groups but heres another one . Why are these astute business men bidding billions to buy the club if there is no chance of them making a profit on their investment?

Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments