He would probably let them see out their contract, trying to convince them we can compete again next season
Top 4 race 2016/17
- Thread starter Yorkeontop
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
We simply don't score goals, especially at key points in games. This coupled with our run-in makes this an almost impossible task imo.
Doesn't seem much of a race anymore.
Wow, City's next four fixtures with Pool, Arsenal, and Chelsea among them... probably the decisive weeks for their season result as a whole.
Interesting look at the run-in from WeAintGotNoHistory.
Uses the Fantasy Premier League Fixture Difficulty Rank (FDR) to work out who has the easiest run-in.
http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2017/3/7/14836658/top-6-remaining-fixtures-comparison
Wow, City's next four fixtures with Pool, Arsenal, and Chelsea among them... probably the decisive weeks for their season result as a whole.
How would they manage this? Both Chelsea and Tottenham playing at the same home stadium? And cup finals will be staged at the home ground of both these clubs? Slightly crazy isn't it?
AC Milan and Inter Milan have been playing together at San Siro since the 40's. It's very possible. Only hassle would be how to accommodate the cup games that other teams would need to play during late FA & League Cup runs.
I'd hate to play in Wembley though. Twickenham would have been perfect but the cnuts don't want us there. We'll see how it plays out.
It's doable, but it's not ideal for anyone. Not many options available though if you have several London teams needing a temporary ground for a few seasons.
because it rarely happens - top clubs spending the doldrums out of CL. That said, top players have regularly stated that they need to be playing CL, especially during their prime years
One more reason not to do it.
Save out Stamford Bridge! Save out Stamford Bridge!! (to the tune of save our nhs)
One more reason not to do it.
Save out Stamford Bridge! Save out Stamford Bridge!! (to the tune of save our nhs)
Why would you want to save the old Bridge when you can have our magnificent fortress like new one?
Why would you want to save the old Bridge when you can have our magnificent fortress like new one?
I wonder what they will rename their stadium. Will they go the way of Arsenal and City and give it some generic corporate name? I wonder what REAL Chelsea fans would think about this?
The same goes for Spurs by the way.
It would appear that Old Trafford (and Anfield) could well be the only remaining stadiums who still honour the legacy and traditions of English football.
Why did you put real in capital letters? Do we not count for some bizarre reason?
I'd hate a corporate stadium name, but let's be realistic, the only reason it didn't happen in the past was because in the past no-one would have paid to have a stadium named after their company. If clubs could have made decent money selling those rights 50 years ago, they'd have done it without any hesitation. It has dick all to do with 'tradition' or 'legacy' that's just what fans like to kid themselves.
Why did you put real in capital letters? Do we not count for some bizarre reason?
I'd hate a corporate stadium name, but let's be realistic, the only reason it didn't happen in the past was because in the past no-one would have paid to have a stadium named after their company. If clubs could have made decent money selling those rights 50 years ago, they'd have done it without any hesitation. It has dick all to do with 'tradition' or 'legacy' that's just what fans like to kid themselves.
You'd hate a corporate stadium name but you have no problem with having Putin's little lap dog money launderer as your owner?
Aww, it still burns doesn't it.
You've lost me, what burns?
I was, am asking you a serious question. Are you really comfortable with who owns your club?
Sugar Daddy clubs wanting to save their stadium name. Seriously!?
They've no reason not to be. He's a fantastic owner in general aside from his personal stuff. Of which is all conjecture. Still, even today, people ask what will happen when Roman leaves Chelsea. He won't be leaving for years yet. Partly why there's talk of him spending a truck load of cash this window coming
Most owners sell naming rights as the.club make a killing from it. I can understand it from a business point of view. If that ridiculously rich Chinese consortium, whose turnover is like 20bn a yr, invest in Chelsea their name will be in the new stadium I suspect. In some way.
Conjecture, seriously?
We couldn't ask for a better owner, mate. Been probably the best club owner in football since he took over. "You'll all be fecked when he dumps you and leaves" but it's 13 years and counting and that's not happening, in fact, we've taken great steps to be self sustainable. Once the stadium is built, it won't even matter if he leaves. Besides, if that ever happens (which is highly unlikely), I'm sure another wealthy fella will snatch it off him
But I'd rather have Roman. You can keep your political views to yourself.
With the rate at which Ed Woodward has been flipping corporate brands into sponsoring almost everything for United, you think if the right deal came along he'd hesitate to rename Old Trafford "The Apple Arena" or something like that? Don't kid yourself.
Yeah I found that funny too
If Arsenal were getting 30m a year, why would he agree to sell yours for 20? I actually hope neither the Bridge or Old Trafford fall prey to renaming personally, but it wouldn't shock me in either case. It's just the times we live in, and it's not like either set of fans will start using the new name after all these years.
Even at Arsenal, if they get a new stadium sponsor, I imagine it'd remain the Emirates to the fans for many years to come. Actually that makes me wonder, how many Arsenal fans actually call it Ashburton Grove? Do any rival fans?
Because Arsenals new stadium didn't have a name people would cling too like Old Trafford. New stadiums get bigger naming rights.
Plus, I'm not sure about this, I think Arsenal included their kit deal with the stadium deal.
Roman Reigns Stadium
We couldn't ask for a better owner, mate. Been probably the best club owner in football since he took over. "You'll all be fecked when he dumps you and leaves" but it's 13 years and counting and that's not happening, in fact, we've taken great steps to be self sustainable. Once the stadium is built, it won't even matter if he leaves. Besides, if that ever happens (which is highly unlikely), I'm sure another wealthy fella will snatch it off him
But I'd rather have Roman. You can keep your political views to yourself.
With the rate at which Ed Woodward has been flipping corporate brands into sponsoring almost everything for United, you think if the right deal came along he'd hesitate to rename Old Trafford "The Apple Arena" or something like that? Don't kid yourself.
Little political views? Wow you're an absolute moron, you simply have no idea.
The great thing about football is that everybody can have a view, regardless. It's almost sweet how a simpleton like you can wander the planet oblivious to the world around them thinking that only football matters.
Once Chelsea's stadium is built you will be over $2 billion in debt to your owners, or in the real world to the owner of your owner.
It's sustainable whilst the real boss allows it to be so.
Good post but it will fall on deaf ears
This is a big fear for me, I said in here about a year ago that I'm really worried about Qatari money coming into Spurs after our stadium is built.
Football is just football at the end of the day and it's not worth selling your soul to the devil for.
He didn't use the word little, why did you add that?
Why are you talking about dollars, are you actually American? If Roman pays for the stadium himself, the debt would be around £1.5-1.6b.
Also what is 'the real boss' supposed to mean? He IS the real boss, he's the sole owner of our club. He's invested vast sums of his own money into the club because he loves football, which he's proved by attending damn near every game and watching just as enthralled as anyone else in the stadium. If he ever does leave, he'll sell it to someone else and walk away with a good return on his investment, just like the owner of any other top club.
He might be alluding to the fact that Roman, like all Russian oligarchs, manage to remain wealthy only because they remain in the good graces of a certain Vladimir Putin. The moment he decides that someone has fallen foul of him, their wealth (and even their life) disappears. It is what appears to have happened to Berezovsky, that ex-KGB guy Litivenko, and Khodorkovsky who used to be even richer than Roman. This guy is pretty powerful, it is said that he even owns his own pet US President
He might be alluding to the fact that Roman, like all Russian oligarchs, manage to remain wealthy only because they remain in the good graces of a certain Vladimir Putin. The moment he decides that someone has fallen foul of him, their wealth (and even their life) disappears. It is what appears to have happened to Berezovsky, that ex-KGB guy Litivenko, and Khodorkovsky who used to be even richer than Roman. This guy is pretty powerful, it is said that he even owns his own pet US President
They are quite ridiculously close. The only real danger to Abramovich would be Putin being overthrown.
Because the $ is the global reserve currency.
Yes he's the owner of the club, and who owns him and could turn him off like a tap tomorrow? He has what he's allowed to have and keeps what he's allowed to keep, just ask Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky and plenty of others.
Thanks Alan Greenspan, now let's go back to being English football fans and not pretentious yank wannabes eh?
You really don't know anything about the relationship between Abramovich and Putin do you? Abramovich is the one who recommended Putin to Yeltsin in the first place. They are very, very close.
Gone off topic.
Chelsea
Liverpool
City
Everton
Chelsea
Liverpool
City
Everton
I doubt you have the first idea what you're talking about and just wrote something that sounded good in your head.
Quite incredible that somebody could think that Russian politics is as simple as being 'quite ridiculously close'.
And Putin being overthrown isn't the only threat to Abramovich, far from it.
Ah ok, given your extensive background and deep understanding of Russian political affairs and manouvering, I must therefore bow to your superior knowledge. Its amazing really that you apparently know so much about the ties between Russian oligarchs yet chose to spend your time here with us lowly football fans. Shouldn't you be off on a super yacht somewhere?
Yes yes you're frantically doing a little Google search and finding snippets, well done, but your basic little search won't help you. You already think the only threat to Abramovich is Putin being overthrown, that in itself proves that you have no idea about Putin, Russia, their relationship with the West, Cameron and plenty more.
As for highlighting the word 'very' like it means something, this is the big world!
Oh and a basic search should find that Berezovsky was actually the 'King maker' who pushed Putin to the presidency, Abramovich was his supporting cast. And he apparently hung himself in his bathroom, strange that, because rumour has it he and Putin were very very close.
My family are Russian and it's an intensely political country, so it's not that amazing.
Was there ever a fit and proper ownership check done on Abramovich by the PL? Or maybe that only started well after he came in? Or maybe Vlad rang up Scudamore and made him an offer he couldn't refuse?