Will the Glazers sell?

[swampash]

But City will be in transition as all of these changes happen. And even though money solves problems, there'll still be some disruption. We're in the ascendency, City will be wobbling at the top trying to stabilise. So there's an opportunity for United to jump into their place, to compete for the title, CL

We’re in the ascendency??? Getting high on the INEOS supply a bit there!

It’s the hope that kills you…
Where is brian, btw?

He's on twitter posting "follow me and I'll follow you back"

...don't do twitter...can you let him know he's missed... and we forgive him for being a journalist?

[Fuck the Glazers]

Ornstein, who broke the Berrada story, gives lots of detail of the deal on this pod. Well worth a listen.

https://theathletic.com/podcast/144-ath ... pisode=736

According to Ornstein, Berrada didn't just oversee the City Group, he worked side by side with Begiristain when signing players. Those two were the nucleus of City's transfers. Begiristain looked at the football side, Berrada the money side.

So to break up that relationship is huge. If City don't adequately replace him, it will affect their excellent recruitment strategy (cos it's about more than just throwing money at players as we've learned). It might also mean that Begiristain is off too, in which case Pep is definitely gone.

Another bit of info, it was believe Berrada was 'ungetable' by other clubs for many reasons, one being it was thought he was destined for ceo job. And then he just goes and fucks them off lol. It might be why City briefed about having a new ceo waiting in the wings, to save face like.

And a final point, this appointment shows the world of football the seemingly impenetrable state machine at City is vulnerable.

Fucking love it

It's a little too premature to be laughing at City mate.

On the contrary, we get so few opportunities, take them while you can

[Fuck the Glazers]

Just been looking at Liverpool's financials, their wage bill has gone up despite being shit on the pitch which is unusual for them. Cos they're well run, they reward on the field success with bonuses, better contracts etc. It's a way of staying within their means if they're not getting a return from the players on the pitch.

We need to do that. It's another cultural change we need to embrace. Design contracts that reward performance, that way, if you're shit, you're not stuck in a ruinous position of having massive outgoings and less incomings. It could match prize money, so if we go further in the CL, the players get more. If not, they don't then the wage bill never gets top heavy.

[Felwin]

Just been looking at Liverpool's financials, their wage bill has gone up despite being shit on the pitch which is unusual for them. Cos they're well run, they reward on the field success with bonuses, better contracts etc. It's a way of staying within their means if they're not getting a return from the players on the pitch.

We need to do that. It's another cultural change we need to embrace. Design contracts that reward performance, that way, if you're shit, you're not stuck in a ruinous position of having massive outgoings and less incomings. It could match prize money, so if we go further in the CL, the players get more. If not, they don't then the wage bill never gets top heavy.

From what I've read, I think it's fairly standard these days to at least have a CL clause in contracts where players get a pay rise or a pay cut depending on whether the team makes the CL. Sounds too sensible for us so no idea if we use those clauses.

I think generally though, the way you point out with a new style of contract will probably be how it's done. Ratcliffe has said he wants success almost instantly (within 2 seasons) but maybe he's just saying that because he's getting on in years. The sensible way is step by step, tell the mercs they're unwanted and that they'll be released at the end of their contract (always a worry for footballers who will take them, if anyone at all - look at Phil Jones). It might mean we're stuck with some of them for a few years as they quite rightly wait out their contract for the payday, but loans and possible transfers where we foot 50% or more of the wages for a season or two will be the only way we see the back of a lot of them.

This "sell/release 15 players" nonsense is seductive because it's like that feeling you get when you take the bins out - dust your hands off, job done. But the reality is it'll be a process. I'm all for playing the youth but we don't want to inadvertently fall way down the league as much as it kinda is our level. This squad showed they can play at times so we'd be right to speculate that we could at the very least get Europa League so INEOS have a shot at silverware in their first full season (which is IMO how they'd see it).

[Fuck the Glazers]

Qatar's ownership of PSG is unravelling.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french- ... tball-psg/

The belief is that Macron's government helped facilitate Qatar's financial doping / sportwashing of PSG. In this case helping Qatar dodge paying tax on the 222m euro Neymar deal

This would have been us if they'd have bought United. Fingers crossed it will be City.

[Fuck the Glazers]

Ratcliffe has gone public and said he wants to rebuild Old Trafford and create a "Wembley of the north". He also wants the taxpayer to pay for part of it the cheeky cunt.

I'm up for a rebuild so long as it's good like Tottenhams.

[Felwin]

Ratcliffe has gone public and said he wants to rebuild Old Trafford and create a "Wembley of the north". He also wants the taxpayer to pay for part of it the cheeky cunt.

I'm up for a rebuild so long as it's good like Tottenhams.

Cheeky, but City and West Ham got free stadiums from the taxpayer, so money for developing a cultural institution shouldn't be as controversial as I'm sure it will be amongst rival fans. The argument for taxpayers money will be around developing the entire area and building an event location, restaurants, bars etc. a la Spurs I'm sure. Not like they'll be asking for the money to buy players or owt.

[swampash]

…sounds like Ineos know what they’re doing.

[Fuck the Glazers]

Ratcliffe has gone public and said he wants to rebuild Old Trafford and create a "Wembley of the north". He also wants the taxpayer to pay for part of it the cheeky cunt.

I'm up for a rebuild so long as it's good like Tottenhams.

Cheeky, but City and West Ham got free stadiums from the taxpayer, so money for developing a cultural institution shouldn't be as controversial as I'm sure it will be amongst rival fans. The argument for taxpayers money will be around developing the entire area and building an event location, restaurants, bars etc. a la Spurs I'm sure. Not like they'll be asking for the money to buy players or owt.

Yeah good points. They'll also probably rent out the new ground for events like Madrid and Spurs are, which they'll say are in the public interest. It'll help United bring in new revenue.

I was listening to Kieran Maguire talk about how Spurs are now the biggest earners from match day revenue cos of their new ground. It's not just on the capacity of the stadium either, it's the other ways they make money like street food and all that bollocks.

City are also building that office & hotel complex and huge screens to bring in more money. This is the way football is going so we'll probably follow suit. I think 2bn is conservative. It'll be more like 2.5/3bn.

[JoelfuckingGlazer]

Ratcliffe has gone public and said he wants to rebuild Old Trafford and create a "Wembley of the north". He also wants the taxpayer to pay for part of it the cheeky cunt.

I'm up for a rebuild so long as it's good like Tottenhams.

Me too. It’ll be a wrench to leave old Trafford but the core of the building is over 100 years old. The key for me, is building a stadium that is not only state-of-the-art, but one which has soul and character.

Fair play to Ratcliffe, he’s showing the sort of ambition we’ve lacked for 20 years.