It’s also in his interest to put support regulations that will damage City and Chelsea.
That is true. Got to wait and see what his end game is
I suspect his end game might be a lot more difficult to achieve than many anticipate. I don’t think Joel and Avram Glazer will play ball very easily.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
I suspect his end game might be a lot more difficult to achieve than many anticipate. I don’t think Joel and Avram Glazer will play ball very easily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, they’re still sat on a cash cow that’s still continuing to grow. I think they did very very well out of him with the deal they got too.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
I suspect his end game might be a lot more difficult to achieve than many anticipate. I don’t think Joel and Avram Glazer will play ball very easily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, they’re still sat on a cash cow that’s still continuing to grow. I think they did very very well out of him with the deal they got too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if Ineos are in any way competent, that growth could be quite significant.
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a desperate leap of faith to believe that a company that already owns two football clubs and part owns a third might want to maximise the potential of that model…
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a desperate leap of faith to believe that a company that already owns two football clubs and part owns a third might want to maximise the potential of that model…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. When the opposition is like 1,000 times more wealthy then Ratcliffe will be careful what he supports. He's not stoopid. He knows what the influx of endless money can do to any industry.
In fact, I would argue that Ratcliffe will be against this. He will be very stoopid and making a whip for United's back if he doesn't toe the party line.
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a desperate leap of faith to believe that a company that already owns two football clubs and part owns a third might want to maximise the potential of that model…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. When the opposition is like 1,000 times more wealthy then Ratcliffe will be careful what he supports. He's not stoopid. He knows what the influx of endless money can do to any industry.
In fact, I would argue that Ratcliffe will be against this. He will be very stoopid and making a whip for United's back if he doesn't toe the party line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He’ll be against the sponsorship element of it (possibly, we don’t know yet exactly which part of the regulations city are actually challenging), not the rest of it though.
United don't need to dope though, they make enough money and their fair value will be high anyway. We'll see. All things considered, I don't think this will go how you have extremely optimistically foresaw.
Do you know how stringent those rules are? Can imagine the prem will be looking at Chelsea with interest. I hope they are stringent rules, I don’t think these ownership models should be allowed, it’s clearly a conflict of interest, no matter what they say.
I do worry about where football is going with this multi ownership bulllshiiiiiit and, especially, the influx of American ownership into football. Liverpool’s owners are looking at a multi club model as well, and we all know them, the Glazers and Kroenke were part of the Super League shenanigans.
United are the richest organic club in England. It will be in Ratcliffe's interest to maintain that. It would be stoopid to allow far richer state sponsored clubs to tap into that endless wealth and make minced meat of United.
The more I think about it the more it seems like you're grasping at straws.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
I do worry about where football is going with this multi ownership bulllshiiiiiit and, especially, the influx of American ownership into football. Liverpool’s owners are looking at a multi club model as well, and we all know them, the Glazers and Kroenke were part of the Super League shenanigans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool owners tried to oppose multi club model. If you can't beat them, join them. If that's how they want to play then FSG reckon they can outdo the competition.
Another 5 star thread from Culer destined for 100+ comments
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
I do worry about where football is going with this multi ownership bulllshiiiiiit and, especially, the influx of American ownership into football. Liverpool’s owners are looking at a multi club model as well, and we all know them, the Glazers and Kroenke were part of the Super League shenanigans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool owners tried to oppose multi club model. If you can't beat them, join them. If that's how they want to play then FSG reckon they can outdo the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s up to them. But it’s not good for football.
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 11 minutes ago
United don't need to dope though, they make enough money and their fair value will be high anyway. We'll see. All things considered, I don't think this will go how you have extremely optimistically foresaw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re still just focussing on the sponsorships there again though. I’ve already said, that’s not the part that Ratcliffe would be against (probably, I caveat that with how much he had Ineos sponsoring Nice so what he wants for one of his clubs might be different for another).
Comment by Meltonblue
He’ll be against the sponsorship element of it (possibly, we don’t know yet exactly which part of the regulations city are actually challenging), not the rest of it though.
Comment by Meltonblue
You’re still just focussing on the sponsorships there again though. I’ve already said, that’s not the part that Ratcliffe would be against
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
Do you know how stringent those rules are? Can imagine the prem will be looking at Chelsea with interest. I hope they are stringent rules, I don’t think these ownership models should be allowed, it’s clearly a conflict of interest, no matter what they say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t vote for the most stringent of rules, a couple of them didn’t get through. They're stringent enough to stop the worst practices of it though.
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Comment by Meltonblue
He’ll be against the sponsorship element of it (possibly, we don’t know yet exactly which part of the regulations city are actually challenging), not the rest of it though.
Comment by Meltonblue
You’re still just focussing on the sponsorships there again though. I’ve already said, that’s not the part that Ratcliffe would be against
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes now read the context that was posted in, it flipped, I’m saying the same thing there!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
Do you know how stringent those rules are? Can imagine the prem will be looking at Chelsea with interest. I hope they are stringent rules, I don’t think these ownership models should be allowed, it’s clearly a conflict of interest, no matter what they say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t vote for the most stringent of rules, a couple of them didn’t get through. They're stringent enough to stop the worst practices of it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We are the biggest club in the world. If anyone can justify a huge sponsorship, its United.
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We are the biggest club in the world. If anyone can justify a huge sponsorship, its United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest of the thread. The apt rules aren’t just about sponsorships.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We are the biggest club in the world. If anyone can justify a huge sponsorship, its United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest of the thread. The apt rules aren’t just about sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prem rules wouldnt apply to Nice, and we jave already had clearance to compete against each other in Europe.
Sign in if you want to comment
Man City: Guilty Regardless Of Verdict
Page 4 of 6
6
posted on 4/6/24
It’s also in his interest to put support regulations that will damage City and Chelsea.
posted on 4/6/24
That is true. Got to wait and see what his end game is
posted on 4/6/24
I suspect his end game might be a lot more difficult to achieve than many anticipate. I don’t think Joel and Avram Glazer will play ball very easily.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
I suspect his end game might be a lot more difficult to achieve than many anticipate. I don’t think Joel and Avram Glazer will play ball very easily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, they’re still sat on a cash cow that’s still continuing to grow. I think they did very very well out of him with the deal they got too.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
I suspect his end game might be a lot more difficult to achieve than many anticipate. I don’t think Joel and Avram Glazer will play ball very easily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, they’re still sat on a cash cow that’s still continuing to grow. I think they did very very well out of him with the deal they got too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if Ineos are in any way competent, that growth could be quite significant.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a desperate leap of faith to believe that a company that already owns two football clubs and part owns a third might want to maximise the potential of that model…
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a desperate leap of faith to believe that a company that already owns two football clubs and part owns a third might want to maximise the potential of that model…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. When the opposition is like 1,000 times more wealthy then Ratcliffe will be careful what he supports. He's not stoopid. He knows what the influx of endless money can do to any industry.
In fact, I would argue that Ratcliffe will be against this. He will be very stoopid and making a whip for United's back if he doesn't toe the party line.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
In that you’re a multi club ownership model yourself too now. The associated party rules aren’t just about potential sponsorships.
———
Not sure it counts as one given the Glazers are the major shareholders. Remains to be seen whether multi club ownership like City Group is the ambition as well, seeing as it strikes more as them just trying to get a foothold into football, and now at a big club like United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it still does as it would clearly be an associated party by the PLs rules, it’s not just the ownership split. It’s not the same as, say, Uefa’s rules on control for entry into the CL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But unless there’s any indication that there’s plans for them to exploit it like City and Chelsea, which I’m yet to see, I’m not sure it’ll matter that much. Unless there’s something you’ve seen that I’ve missed?
United have been one of the clubs pushing for these regulations most, find it unlikely to have changed just because of the circumstances you’ve mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the things I’ve seen Ratcliffe say, both about his own opinion on muliyclub ownership and when he’s spoken about us. I can’t see him, particularly being the businessman (and let’s be honest, like all of them at that level, the tw@ts they are!) ever be likely to support additional regulation personally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate leap of faith IMO. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a desperate leap of faith to believe that a company that already owns two football clubs and part owns a third might want to maximise the potential of that model…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. When the opposition is like 1,000 times more wealthy then Ratcliffe will be careful what he supports. He's not stoopid. He knows what the influx of endless money can do to any industry.
In fact, I would argue that Ratcliffe will be against this. He will be very stoopid and making a whip for United's back if he doesn't toe the party line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He’ll be against the sponsorship element of it (possibly, we don’t know yet exactly which part of the regulations city are actually challenging), not the rest of it though.
posted on 4/6/24
United don't need to dope though, they make enough money and their fair value will be high anyway. We'll see. All things considered, I don't think this will go how you have extremely optimistically foresaw.
posted on 4/6/24
Do you know how stringent those rules are? Can imagine the prem will be looking at Chelsea with interest. I hope they are stringent rules, I don’t think these ownership models should be allowed, it’s clearly a conflict of interest, no matter what they say.
posted on 4/6/24
I do worry about where football is going with this multi ownership bulllshiiiiiit and, especially, the influx of American ownership into football. Liverpool’s owners are looking at a multi club model as well, and we all know them, the Glazers and Kroenke were part of the Super League shenanigans.
posted on 4/6/24
United are the richest organic club in England. It will be in Ratcliffe's interest to maintain that. It would be stoopid to allow far richer state sponsored clubs to tap into that endless wealth and make minced meat of United.
The more I think about it the more it seems like you're grasping at straws.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
I do worry about where football is going with this multi ownership bulllshiiiiiit and, especially, the influx of American ownership into football. Liverpool’s owners are looking at a multi club model as well, and we all know them, the Glazers and Kroenke were part of the Super League shenanigans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool owners tried to oppose multi club model. If you can't beat them, join them. If that's how they want to play then FSG reckon they can outdo the competition.
posted on 4/6/24
Another 5 star thread from Culer destined for 100+ comments
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
I do worry about where football is going with this multi ownership bulllshiiiiiit and, especially, the influx of American ownership into football. Liverpool’s owners are looking at a multi club model as well, and we all know them, the Glazers and Kroenke were part of the Super League shenanigans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool owners tried to oppose multi club model. If you can't beat them, join them. If that's how they want to play then FSG reckon they can outdo the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s up to them. But it’s not good for football.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 11 minutes ago
United don't need to dope though, they make enough money and their fair value will be high anyway. We'll see. All things considered, I don't think this will go how you have extremely optimistically foresaw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re still just focussing on the sponsorships there again though. I’ve already said, that’s not the part that Ratcliffe would be against (probably, I caveat that with how much he had Ineos sponsoring Nice so what he wants for one of his clubs might be different for another).
posted on 4/6/24
Comment by Meltonblue
He’ll be against the sponsorship element of it (possibly, we don’t know yet exactly which part of the regulations city are actually challenging), not the rest of it though.
Comment by Meltonblue
You’re still just focussing on the sponsorships there again though. I’ve already said, that’s not the part that Ratcliffe would be against
posted on 4/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
Do you know how stringent those rules are? Can imagine the prem will be looking at Chelsea with interest. I hope they are stringent rules, I don’t think these ownership models should be allowed, it’s clearly a conflict of interest, no matter what they say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t vote for the most stringent of rules, a couple of them didn’t get through. They're stringent enough to stop the worst practices of it though.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The greatest thing that ever happened to humankind (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Comment by Meltonblue
He’ll be against the sponsorship element of it (possibly, we don’t know yet exactly which part of the regulations city are actually challenging), not the rest of it though.
Comment by Meltonblue
You’re still just focussing on the sponsorships there again though. I’ve already said, that’s not the part that Ratcliffe would be against
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes now read the context that was posted in, it flipped, I’m saying the same thing there!
posted on 4/6/24
OK
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
Do you know how stringent those rules are? Can imagine the prem will be looking at Chelsea with interest. I hope they are stringent rules, I don’t think these ownership models should be allowed, it’s clearly a conflict of interest, no matter what they say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t vote for the most stringent of rules, a couple of them didn’t get through. They're stringent enough to stop the worst practices of it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We are the biggest club in the world. If anyone can justify a huge sponsorship, its United.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We are the biggest club in the world. If anyone can justify a huge sponsorship, its United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest of the thread. The apt rules aren’t just about sponsorships.
posted on 4/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Trump 2024- Let's make America great again. (U9692)
posted 17 seconds ago
Melt I think you are wrong on this matter, even though you're an excellent poster.
It's true that United, Liverpool et al look out for number one, and have had their own shady transactions , which if proven should also be punished.
But that doesn't exonerate City, you, I, and everyone knows accepted money from your owners that was against the rules. They should man up and accept their punishment, as should we if found guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you’re confusing two different things there. This case has nothing to do with the charges brought against city, it’s about the new associated party rules that were only brought in three years ago.
What I’ve said in this thread is given Uniteds new investors, they are likely to be against the APT rules too now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? We are the biggest club in the world. If anyone can justify a huge sponsorship, its United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the rest of the thread. The apt rules aren’t just about sponsorships.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prem rules wouldnt apply to Nice, and we jave already had clearance to compete against each other in Europe.
Page 4 of 6
6