Legit thought the first sentence was going to be about injecting something into his nether regions.

Not been a huge fan of Jim but that's £400m now that's been injected into the club to pay off some debts and improve infrastructure. £400m more than the parasites have ever invested.

Everything we've spent under their stewardship has been club funded / loans taken against the club and not them.

I consider myself a nice person mostly and genuinely don't wish ill will on anyone but if the Glazer offspring were to all suffer sudden and painful deaths I don't think I'd shed a single tear if I'm brutally honest. Does that make me a monster? If so then good.

comment by Pun The Acknowledger (U21588)
posted 13 minutes ago
Legit thought the first sentence was going to be about injecting something into his nether regions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid cash, injected into his COOOOOOOOOCCKKKKKKKK

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 45 minutes ago
Not been a huge fan of Jim but that's £400m now that's been injected into the club to pay off some debts and improve infrastructure. £400m more than the parasites have ever invested.

Everything we've spent under their stewardship has been club funded / loans taken against the club and not them.

I consider myself a nice person mostly and genuinely don't wish ill will on anyone but if the Glazer offspring were to all suffer sudden and painful deaths I don't think I'd shed a single tear if I'm brutally honest. Does that make me a monster? If so then good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hear hear.

With you on this one SE85

Season of good will and all that jazz

Christmas cancelled in the Sir Jim household, gotta fix the stadium roof.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 43 minutes ago
Not been a huge fan of Jim but that's £400m now that's been injected into the club to pay off some debts and improve infrastructure. £400m more than the parasites have ever invested.

Everything we've spent under their stewardship has been club funded / loans taken against the club and not them.

I consider myself a nice person mostly and genuinely don't wish ill will on anyone but if the Glazer offspring were to all suffer sudden and painful deaths I don't think I'd shed a single tear if I'm brutally honest. Does that make me a monster? If so then good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Glazer's have fecked United over to the tune of hundreds of millions in dividends and interest payments on the debts they've loaded onto the club. Parasites.

Isn’t this just the second part of the payment that was agreed upon when Jim bought his share?

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 20 minutes ago
Isn’t this just the second part of the payment that was agreed upon when Jim bought his share?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently, yes. Quoting the Athletic report:

'Ratcliffe has followed through on his commitment to invest another $100million (£79m) into United, as laid out per his agreement with the Glazer family struck nearly a year ago.'

How the Glazers even had the bare face cheek to insist on this clause that he had to invest 300-400m quid extra to the club as part of the deal is quite honestly incredible. They haven't invested one penny in 19 years. It's absolutely insulting to each and every one of us.

Genuinely the most tone deaf and worst football operators of all time bar none.

In terms of the bigger picture, there's not such a massive gap between INEOS and the Glazers in % of shares owned. INEOS is nearly at 30%. The six Glazer siblings combined have somewhere in the 40s%. The gap in power is much more substantial due to the Glazers only having shares with voting rights. However, whether they would vote as a single bloc is up for question.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
How the Glazers even had the bare face cheek to insist on this clause that he had to invest 300-400m quid extra to the club as part of the deal is quite honestly incredible. They haven't invested one penny in 19 years. It's absolutely insulting to each and every one of us.

Genuinely the most tone deaf and worst football operators of all time bar none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No argument about how рisspoor the Glazers have always been. But do we know whether they insisted on the investment on top, or whether e.g. Ratcliffe agreed a price but, seeing the desperate state of finances, insisted that a portion of that investment went into the business rather than the pockets of the Glazers?

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
How the Glazers even had the bare face cheek to insist on this clause that he had to invest 300-400m quid extra to the club as part of the deal is quite honestly incredible. They haven't invested one penny in 19 years. It's absolutely insulting to each and every one of us.

Genuinely the most tone deaf and worst football operators of all time bar none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No argument about how рisspoor the Glazers have always been. But do we know whether they insisted on the investment on top, or whether e.g. Ratcliffe agreed a price but, seeing the desperate state of finances, insisted that a portion of that investment went into the business rather than the pockets of the Glazers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair point but I think it's shameful on them in either of those scenarios isn't it?

I'm pretty positive I read it was a stipulation though. Stand to be corrected.

I'm no fan of the Glazers at all in terms of what they've done to the football club but, as an investment, it's been quite a good one for them!

comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
I'm no fan of the Glazers at all in terms of what they've done to the football club but, as an investment, it's been quite a good one for them!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it has and when this new revamped Superleague / Unify League eventually happens it will be another huge payday for them assuming we are actually in it.

I don't see a way out at that point. We would be valued way way way above what any sane person would pay. You could argue they reported 5bn was already more than anyone would pay as Qatar walked away.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
I'm no fan of the Glazers at all in terms of what they've done to the football club but, as an investment, it's been quite a good one for them!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it has and when this new revamped Superleague / Unify League eventually happens it will be another huge payday for them assuming we are actually in it.

I don't see a way out at that point. We would be valued way way way above what any sane person would pay. You could argue they reported 5bn was already more than anyone would pay as Qatar walked away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They shouldn't have been allowed to buy it in the first place but they're businesspeople trying to make a buck. The only surprise for me is that they've hired clowns to do their work for them.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
How the Glazers even had the bare face cheek to insist on this clause that he had to invest 300-400m quid extra to the club as part of the deal is quite honestly incredible. They haven't invested one penny in 19 years. It's absolutely insulting to each and every one of us.

Genuinely the most tone deaf and worst football operators of all time bar none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No argument about how рisspoor the Glazers have always been. But do we know whether they insisted on the investment on top, or whether e.g. Ratcliffe agreed a price but, seeing the desperate state of finances, insisted that a portion of that investment went into the business rather than the pockets of the Glazers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair point but I think it's shameful on them in either of those scenarios isn't it?

I'm pretty positive I read it was a stipulation though. Stand to be corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be happy to be corrected if the Glazers stipulated that a sum be pumped into the business alongside the share purchase going to their pockets. But either way it amounts to the same thing: the business needed an injection of cash and the Glazers wanted to sell. Ultimately, Ratcliffe had a price he was willing to pay, factoring in that a small part of that would go into the business. Ratcliffe wanted to pay no more than necessary in total; the Glazers wanted as much as they could raise. The end result was an outcome both parties were comfortable with. I assume there was transparency on both sides about what it involved and what the business required.

So I don't see that in itself as a shameful act. What's shameful is a couple of decades of neglect and extraction as the parasites bled the club dry with no interest in being long-term custodians of the club or in its sporting operations. The shame precedes this transaction, and it's deep.

comment by Pun The Acknowledger (U21588)
posted 3 hours, 43 minutes ago
Legit thought the first sentence was going to be about injecting something into his nether regions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s like 80, probably can’t raise a smile without help

Do you think he's going to get visited by 3 ghosts over Christmas?

Exclusive: Man United cut stewards’ £100 bonus and the £50 cash prize for steward of the week as Ineos continue slashing costs.

"Steward of the week" - what's that all about?

comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 27 minutes ago
"Steward of the week" - what's that all about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The backbone of the values of Man Utd. Jim must have been fuming it when cutting these bonuses didn't save him the 400m he needed to invest.

comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 37 minutes ago
"Steward of the week" - what's that all about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The one that tells the most supporters to sit down.

Officially 'Steward of the Week'.

Unofficially 'bar steward of the week'.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 7 hours, 6 minutes ago
Not been a huge fan of Jim but that's £400m now that's been injected into the club to pay off some debts and improve infrastructure. £400m more than the parasites have ever invested.

Everything we've spent under their stewardship has been club funded / loans taken against the club and not them.

I consider myself a nice person mostly and genuinely don't wish ill will on anyone but if the Glazer offspring were to all suffer sudden and painful deaths I don't think I'd shed a single tear if I'm brutally honest. Does that make me a monster? If so then good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A tad too much. It is only football.

They are world class cretins but I won’t go this far. I mean it goes without saying none of shedding a tear if the Glazers family go. They ain’t shedding a tear for me and my family

Exclusive: Man United cut stewards’ £100 bonus and the £50 cash prize for steward of the week as Ineos continue slashing costs.
+++

If this is true, it's pathetic. £50 cash prize for steward of the week equates to, how many weeks do we do football at OT? x £50.

Its not the money, is the prestige that the steward feels by winning it which when team building with low paid workers is priceless.

Hes an idiot. A successful and very rich one. But still an idiot. And our idiot.

What an idiot Jim is sometimes

comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 27 minutes ago
Exclusive: Man United cut stewards’ £100 bonus and the £50 cash prize for steward of the week as Ineos continue slashing costs.
+++

If this is true, it's pathetic. £50 cash prize for steward of the week equates to, how many weeks do we do football at OT? x £50.

Its not the money, is the prestige that the steward feels by winning it which when team building with low paid workers is priceless.

Hes an idiot. A successful and very rich one. But still an idiot. And our idiot.

What an idiot Jim is sometimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone that supports this clown is in cuckoo land. I can never support some of the nonsense he is doing. There is a story behind this club and how we came to be! Everything this swine is doing is against the values of this club.

The city owners came, gave people jobs and created jobs for the city of Manchester. Sir Jim and his oriole cutting jobs and cutting wages.