Malcolm Glazier: Here he goes again

The Muppet

Tycoon renews bid for Man Utd
David Bond, Evening Standard
28 January 2005

AMERICAN sports tycoon Malcolm Glazer is launching a new takeover bid for Manchester United. Despite massive supporter opposition to his plans to seize control of Old Trafford, the US billionaire and his two sons, Joel and Avi, are pressing ahead in their attempt to buy the club.

As the news emerged, Manchester United shares, which had been broadly flat this morning, fell 6¾p to 245¾p.

According to City sources, Glazer, who owns 28.1% of United, has new backing for an £800m bid and is trying to secure a deal with the club's major shareholders, the Irish entrepreneurs JP McManus and John Magnier.

It is understood he has made contact with representatives of their Cubic Expression investment company, which owns 29% of the club, but that they are not, at this stage, interested in opening negotiations.

Glazer failed in his last attempt to buy United in November after his bankers JP Morgan pulled out after refusing to back his move to vote three directors off the United plc board at the club's AGM.

His City public relations advisers, Brunswick, also withdrew as supporters mounted an aggressive campaign to derail his attempt to buy the club.

But the Evening Standard, This is Money's sister title, has learned that Glazer's representatives have been back in touch with Brunswick over the past two weeks to see if they would be prepared to get back on board - a move which has been rebuffed by the spindoctors.

It has also emerged that he now has the backing of a major investment bank, believed to be NM Rothschild. The legal firm Allen & Overy, who backed his previous bid, are still on board and are playing a central role in the fresh takeover move.

Unlike his previous bid, Glazer believes he has come up with a proposal which is less reliant on debt. United ended talks on the first bid with Glazer and his family, saying it was 'overly leveraged'.

According to sources, Glazer has come up with a new scheme which reduces borrowings but that will be covered by a 20% increase in ticket prices in the second year of the new regime - a move certain to infuriate fans.

Glazer could announce his latest approach as early as next week and that is certain to spark a new round of protests. United manager Sir Alex Ferguson expressed his opposition to the move in November when he said: 'We don't want the club to be in anyone else's hands.'

However, the club's board have indicated in the past that they would be prepared to back a 300p a share offer from Glazer. But just before Christmas they told him during a meeting in Florida that they would not open talks unless he made a formal offer for the company. United's shares were trading unchanged on the London Stock Exchange today at 252p a share, valuing the company at £663m.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=397536&in_page_id=2

cournioni

I sincerely hope that he will piss off some time soon. Having someone like him running Manchester United would not be a good thing for the team, manager, staff, supporters or the club assets. I can't see him doing any good as I've said before, he has no interest in the football at all, it is only money he is after.

Big Ears

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I sincerely hope that he will piss off some time soon. Having someone like him running Manchester United would not be a good thing for the team, manager, staff, supporters or the club assets. I can't see him doing any good as I've said before, he has no interest in the football at all, it is only money he is after.

lol , news like this must infuriate United fans . His tactics may have worked with American Football but I doubt they will work in soccer , if he gets his way , I can't see yee coming close to contending with Chelsea , ever......again :eek: .

jesus_thats_gre

He will get his way eventually you know...

Thanx 4 The Fish

He has the money, he has the opportunity and he knows that there is money to be made. So how much extra will the tickets for Man U games cost in a couple of seasons ? And if they cost all that much more would they get anywhere near a full house for the so called lesser games.

PHB

Well he is a business man, so its in his interest for the following:

1) Maintain a full crowd in the stadium, which he will do by maintaining maximum profit by decided what price to charge to intice all people

2) Maintain United's position as a world class side, and continue their attemps towards Eruopean dominance

3) Contineu man Utd's franchise aroudn the world, and bring it to a new level with an american idea.


At the moment, while the owners like football, money is the most important thing to them, just like any any any other club, except Chelsea.

Please tell me how this guy is any worse than any other owner, once heresolves the debt issue, which is the only time that he will be able to buy the club

LegacyUser

You know...anything is worth a look...because I can not see United overcoming Chelsea. Maybe the media have influenced me, but I am very dissapointed with United. Chelsea miles ahead. Ye i know anything can happen but I am not optimistic.

Headshot

hes at it again my god the man just doesnt give up im worried for united now will he buy united lads is there any way to stop him

The Muppet

He needs the Cubic expression group to accept his offer and as long as they don't United are safe. Who knows Magnier and Co may have ambitions to take control themselve and despite the bad feeling generated over Fergie and the Horse they may become more acceptadble to United fans if it was a choice between them and the yank.

Chucky the tree

why are united fans so against him taking over?

The Muppet

Because they fear he in only interested in profit and will not invest properly in the team. Ideally United Fans would like to own the club themselves with profits put back into the team. Shareholders united are a supporters group that have a substantial holding in the club but they need alot more members to achieve their goal.

Chucky the tree

too make profit, surely he will have to invest in the team though?

The Muppet

Chucky the tree wrote:

too make profit, surely he will have to invest in the team though?

Not if he was only interested in the short term and wanted to make a quick profit.

smemon

utd dont need this guy, in order to keep the club in relatively safe hands, it shouldnt be bought by one man.

so what if he invest on the pitch, who are we gonna buy? rooney, ferdinand for 50m? you get the picture, utd are already the biggest club in the world, money isnt needed, we already have money, its stupid to risk everything we have.

expanding the stadium shows utd are continuing to grow and develop and are keen to remain the biggest club in the world. if something isnt broke, you dont need to fix it and that should be the thoughts of all utd fans. we are not in a cheslea/leeds situation thank god.

wheres me jumpa

im not sure how these things work, but does the club have any choice in the matter? i.e. who can reject his offer if he strikes a deal with the irish lads?

i thinks its only a matter of time before he takes over anyway.

SteM

PHB wrote:

Please tell me how this guy is any worse than any other owner, once heresolves the debt issue, which is the only time that he will be able to buy the club

This guy isn't a Roman Abramovich, he doesn't have to money both buy the club and to invest in the team after takeover. He can still takeover the club by taking out a loan (that's why he's dealing with bankers in the first place) so can you tell me how he:

1) Intends to pay back the loan and
2) Invest in the team and stadium to ensure United continue to grow or keep pace with the likes of Real or Chelsea and
3) Make money on this deal in his lifetime - surely short term profit will be important to him if he's a business man

all at the same time?

The Rooster

United currently pay dividends to their shareholders. This would continue under him, but all the divs would go to him, as he'd be the only shareholder. He'd use this to pay the debt.

The only way he can pay himself big dividends is by making big profits. United will need to be largely successful to generate big profits.

Rightly or wrongly, most of the anger by Shareholders Utd is nepotism. They dont want a foreigner owning "their" club.

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

United currently pay dividends to their shareholders. This would continue under him, but all the divs would go to him, as he'd be the only shareholder. He'd use this to pay the debt.

I'm aware that dividends are paid to Shareholders, I hope you're right that they would cover the loan if United do well. What about my 2 other points by the way? He still has to make a profit for himself and improve the squad - where does that money come from?

By the way, what if United are not successful over a number of years? Where do the loan repayments come from then? You're into a spiral situation where the money wouldn't be there to improve the squad because the money that is being made is going to pay off his loan debts.

Rightly or wrongly, most of the anger by Shareholders Utd is nepotism. They dont want a foreigner owning "their" club.

Shareholders of United come from all over the world so this statement is laughable.

smemon

SteM wrote:

Shareholders of United come from all over the world so this statement is laughable.

not really, its mostly fans of the club that invest so although they maybe 'foreigners', they care about the club and dont want to see it being taken over by someone who doesnt care about the club.

name me one advantage to him taking over?

SteM

smemon wrote:

not really, its mostly fans of the club that invest so although they maybe 'foreigners', they care about the club and dont want to see it being taken over by someone who doesnt care about the club.

name me one advantage to him taking over?

I *think* you were agreeing with what I said.

DapperGent

I remember one statement from the Glazier camp last time he tried to buy the club in which they were refering to it as a "franchise".

No wonder Man Utd fans are going mental.

The Rooster

SteM wrote:

I'm aware that dividends are paid to Shareholders, I hope you're right that they would cover the loan if United do well. What about my 2 other points by the way? He still has to make a profit for himself and improve the squad - where does that money come from?

The way I understand the deal is that the current level of dividend payments will approximate to the interest on the loan. If United do make more profit when he's on board then, naturally, he will take more profit himself. But its only a percentage of profit that gets paid out in dividends. The rest gets ploughed back in for re-investment. To suggest Glazier wont continue this would be a nonsense. He hasnt made all his millions by being stupid.

SteM wrote:

By the way, what if United are not successful over a number of years? Where do the loan repayments come from then? You're into a spiral situation where the money wouldn't be there to improve the squad because the money that is being made is going to pay off his loan debts.

It would take a "genius" to turn United into a loss making machine. If he did he would be the biggest loser. If a company does not make a profit, then legally it is prevented from paying a dividend. So he would be unable to pay off his loan. He would not be able to use Man Utd money to pay his loan. He would have to fund the loan from other of his money sources. It would be in his interest more than anyone else to keep United profitable - and everyone knows this requires significant annual investment.

SteM wrote:

Shareholders of United come from all over the world so this statement is laughable.

Shareholders Utd are mostly British. I read recently that 22 of the 24 directors/committe members are British.

The aim of Shareholders Utd is for supporters to own and control Man Utd. That's a perfectly good and reasonable aim. Success of the club would be far more important than dividends etc. And they can succeed if so-called genuine fans, all over the world, put their money where their mouth is. 25% is well doable, and that would be enough to prevent any future takeover, I believe. However, they are certainly not beyond dirty tricks, and they do put out a helluva lot of misinformation regarding Glazer.

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

The way I understand the deal is that the current level of dividend payments will approximate to the interest on the loan. If United do make more profit when he's on board then, naturally, he will take more profit himself. But its only a percentage of profit that gets paid out in dividends. The rest gets ploughed back in for re-investment. To suggest Glazier wont continue this would be a nonsense. He hasnt made all his millions by being stupid.



It would take a "genius" to turn United into a loss making machine. If he did he would be the biggest loser. If a company does not make a profit, then legally it is prevented from paying a dividend. So he would be unable to pay off his loan. He would not be able to use Man Utd money to pay his loan. He would have to fund the loan from other of his money sources. It would be in his interest more than anyone else to keep United profitable - and everyone knows this requires significant annual investment.



Shareholders Utd are mostly British. I read recently that 22 of the 24 directors/committe members are British.

The aim of Shareholders Utd is for supporters to own and control Man Utd. That's a perfectly good and reasonable aim. Success of the club would be far more important than dividends etc. And they can succeed if so-called genuine fans, all over the world, put their money where their mouth is. 25% is well doable, and that would be enough to prevent any future takeover, I believe. However, they are certainly not beyond dirty tricks, and they do put out a helluva lot of misinformation regarding Glazer.

This is all just your opinion, there's not really one fact apart from 'I read recently that 22 of the 24 directors/committe members are British.' - this has no bearing on Shareholders United as a whole and doesn't back up your statement that 'Shareholders Utd are mostly British.' or that 'Rightly or wrongly, most of the anger by Shareholders Utd is nepotism. They dont want a foreigner owning "their" club.'.

No one knows how successful him taking over Manchester United would be, but the Tampa Bay Bucs are hardly winning the Superbowl every year are they? I've looked at Tampa Bay Bucs forums in the past and he's certainly not the most liked or respected owner in the league.

Everyone can have an opinion about this takeover but the only opinions that truely matter are those of United fans and those connected with the club. They are the people who have invested a lot of time and money in following the team over the years, no one else. There was a very good Reuters piece on Monday about the how the Glazer attempts have contrasted with Abramovich's takeover. Chelsea needed Abramovich, they were in debt when he took over. United are not so nothing can be gained from the Glazier takeover.

The Rooster

Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?

But I'm bored with this, so I'll stop now. (woohooo )

The Muppet

The Rooster wrote:

Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?

But I'm bored with this, so I'll stop now. (woohooo )

Sahreholder United is controlled By United Fans their nationality is irrelevant, but as a member I do know that there indeed lots of members from the locations you mention. Sharholderes United are group that have agreed to put all their dividends straight back into the club in the form of further share purchases, so while you can question the methods their motives are above reproach. Nobody profits except Manchester United Football club.

ZENER

The Rooster wrote:

Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?

Not all shareholders with SU are "Brits", I have a few shares and I'm not a "Brit". I'd be airly sure that there are thousands of fans in other countries with shares too - in particular: Asia.

ZEN

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?

But I'm bored with this, so I'll stop now. (woohooo )

This whole comment just shows your lack of understanding on the whole subject. Really, it's a good thing that you're stopping now. BTW, I'm a member of SU and hold a few shares of them independently (a birthday present from years ago) but am Irish. My wife-to-be is also a member of SU, she is English however.

The Muppet

SteM wrote:

My wife-to-be is also a member of SU,

Respect, I had to convert mine.:)

AthAnRi

Originally Posted by The Rooster
Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?

Well as a matter of fact whether you believe it or not, Norway has over 1400 members in Shareholders United, Ireland has 900 members.This is out of a total of total of approximately 20,000 members. Whether or not the majority of supporter are bitish or not is irrelevant. Shareholders United is a worthwile group for all ManUtd fans. Their goal is not to prevent a takeover from Outside investors, their goal is to prevent takeovers from people they believe do not have the best interests of the club at heart.

I don't believe that glazer has this and neither do shareholders united. They currently have a 15% claim on the club but require a 25% claim in order to block a bid. The only way they can get this 10% is if United fans start to join Shareholders United So if you are a self confessed Utd fan i urge you to join. It is the only way that we as fans can truely ensure that now and in the future the Fans have a voice in the happinings of the club

http://shareholdersunited.org/

yop

The Rooster wrote:

Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?

But I'm bored with this, so I'll stop now. (woohooo )

I check the birth cert and yes I am Irish, and own shares. Where did you get you logic?

Big Ears

SteM wrote:

This is all just your opinion

really because I didn't think this part was opinion , but more fact :'If a company does not make a profit, then legally it is prevented from paying a dividend. So he would be unable to pay off his loan. He would not be able to use Man Utd money to pay his loan. He would have to fund the loan from other of his money sources. It would be in his interest more than anyone else to keep United profitable - and everyone knows this requires significant annual investment.'

SteM

Thats a fine bit of selective quoting there Big Ears. So there are 2 facts in his post. What about all the other rubbish he posted, I notice you're not mentioning that or anything else in my post to him. :rolleyes:

Just because 'It would be in his interest more than anyone else to keep United profitable - and everyone knows this requires significant annual investment.' doesn't mean that this will happen, no one can see the future. The fact is that United are not in debt at the moment, if he takes over by borrowing money against future payments/profits we will be.

Aquos76

yop wrote:

I check the birth cert and yes I am Irish, and own shares. Where did you get you logic?

like yop I am also Irish and I also have shares, so your logic is incorrect.

Big Ears

SteM wrote:

Thats a fine bit of selective quoting there Big Ears. So there are 2 facts in his post. What about all the other rubbish he posted, I notice you're not mentioning that or anything else in my post to him. :rolleyes:

im sorry , have we recently been forced to talk about all of people's posts ?

SteM

Big Ears wrote:

im sorry

That's quite alright.

The Rooster

Typically of Shareholders Utd to misquote and give false information!! And I never said that their aims arent good and dont have the interest of the soccer club at heart - their methods though are occassionally underhand. "Glazer is going to come in and destroy the club, he won't buy any players, he'll turn us into loss making, and take all the cash out of the club"

Nowhere did I say there were no Irish shareholders. I just said there wasnt "thousands" of them. And I've been proven right - there are 900, a long way (1100 to be precise!) from "thousands".

Anyway its the directors who control what an organisation do, and 92% of the directors/committee are British.

Only 20,000 members of Shareholders Utd. Very low. Much lower than I thought. The millions of United fans around the world must not be very loyal. Your club needs you - the evil Glazer is going to destroy you. Dont buy jersies, buy shares. 25% of the shares is easily doable.

I see (Ceefax yesterday) a shareholders group has issued a veiled threat to Malcolm Glazer. Something like "its does not matter how many bodyguards and minders you have, we will always outnumber you, and we will get you". Manchester Police have been called in. Classy group obviously.

Quotes below from Shareholders United. If Glazer takes over, they themselves intend to bankrupt the club!

http://www.sportinglife.com/story_get.dor?STORY_NAME=soccer/05/02/09/manual_185436.html

Hundreds of Manchester United fans gathered at the club's Old Trafford stadium today to protest against the potential take-over by American tycoon Malcolm Glazer.

More than 400 fans joined the protest after word was spread using the internet and mobile phones.

The fans were well behaved but sang songs which made death threats to Glazer.

The chants included: "He's gonna die, Malcolm Glazer's gonna die, how we'll kill him I don't know, cut him up from head to toe, all I know is Glazer's gonna die."

Another chant threatened to build a bonfire with Glazer on the top and his bankers in the middle.

Police kept a low key presence as fans marched around the stadium.

Oliver Houston, vice chairman of the fans pressure group, Shareholders United, said: "Our message to Manchester United is to close the book on Malcolm Glazer.

"He wants to know where the money is coming from within the club. Well it comes from us, the fans.

"If he takes over there won't be any coming in because we will not buy the merchandise, we will not go to the matches and United will not get the income they get now."

Sales assistant, Mark Whittaker, from Sale, said: "We have come here to show the strength of feeling to the club and to Glazer.

"This is just the start of it. This should give him an idea of how much we don't want him interfering with Manchester United."

More than 100 fans ignored police requests to clear the road outside the stadium's main entrance and carried out a sit-down protest.

AthAnRi

Anyway its the directors who control what an organisation do, and 92% of the directors/committee are British.

Only 20,000 members of Shareholders Utd. Very low. Much lower than I thought. The millions of United fans around the world must not be very loyal. Your club needs you - the evil Glazer is going to destroy you. Dont buy jersies, buy shares. 25% of the shares is easily doable.
QUOTE]

True 92% of them are British, this is amazing really. Considering that 90% of the United attendence are also british(Not to be confused with 90% of Fans).

While you may say 20,000 members is very low this is not a true reflection on how many fans have contributed to buying shares for shareholders united. If you knew anything about S.U. you would know that there are 2 ways to join S.U. 1) to become a member 2) to donate money to the organisation in order to buy shares. Secondly Sharholders united are not a very well known group around the world. As far as I know they are not allowed to advertise and probably cannot afford to in anycase, there fore to have 20,000 anual members is remarkable. SU rely on word of mouth, fanzines and message boads such as this. That is why it's important that every Man U fan gets onto every other Man United fan they know and get them to sign up to SU ASAP.

It is also true that you didn't mention anything about Irish Shareholders but you did say and I quote

"Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Thats a fact. Do you really think there are thousands of Asians, Scandinavians etc. out there with shares?"

Now I took etc to mean the rest of the world with the exception of Brits and the last time I checked Ireland is not in Britain. So therefore by taking the number of Irish members, 1100 and adding them to the number of Norweigen Members 1400, you get a grand total of 2500 shareholders approx. Now when I went to school any number that contained 4 digits was considered thousand and if the first number of these 4 digits is greater than 1 then it indicates thousands. Therefore your statement is wrong.

I also fail to see how there methods are underhand. I believe that they are a very professionally run organisation and are going about things the right way, as apposed to the Manchester Education Organistion, whom you may be mixing up with Shareholders united.

If you have no interest in Man United and are not a Man United fan then I do not expect you or anyone to join shareholders united. But I would greatly appreciate if you got you facts straight before you go spouting rubbish that may dissuade potential 'investors' from investing in this worth while organisation.

The Rooster

Very nitpicky AthnaRi :rolleyes: I was just making the point that Shareholders Utd is controlled by Brits. Ste said that was "laughable" to say the Man Utd supporters groups didnt want a foreign owner because Utd had supporters all over the world. So I was just trying to make the point that foreign fans are far less likely to hold shares than British fans. And it is clear that a majority of members of all the supporters groups are British - while of course there will be small minorities from a variety of countries. I think the reality is that Shareholder Utd and the others don't want any new owner - and a foreign new owner would be the worst kind in their opinion. I dont think there's anything wrong with that opinion.

Anyone hear the representative from a shareholders group on Newstalk 106 last night? I think he was from "United Action" or similar. How many supporters groups are there??? - this appears to be different from Shareholders United and the Manchester Education Organisation (MEO is the one that issued the written veiled threat to Glazer, as reported on Ceefax). The guy said he wasnt in the MEO, and didnt necessarily condone their methods (but he didnt condemm them either) and said he knows the leaders personally and would take their threats seriously - he reminded me very much of the way Gerry Adams speaks about the P IRA.

He said that if McManus and Magnier sold their shares to Glazer, the MEO would consider them "collaberators" and they would become "legitimate targets". He mentioed Coolmore Stud also.

If this Glazer bid progresses at all (and according to your man, its very likely to progress to the next step - which is the Board giving Glazer access to books and records) then things are goina get very serious. The creation of a terrorist organisation (namely the MEO) seems to be a real possibility :eek:

Anyone read the article in the Examiner on Wednesday by the Man Utd fan (a English fanzine editor or something, I think - Kurt Somebody - he has a weekly article). He said it may be time for the "men in balaclavas" to come out, and that they would have the support of most ManU fans. The strength of feeling is frightening. Would any ManU supporters here support any kind of terrorist action to stop the Glazer bid??

PHB

Well, I would support, if people wanted to, a blockade of an entire game by all United fans just to show that we mean business.
That said, I'm not as concerned bout the Glazier bid as other people are.
The nature of the PLC means that he really can't strip the club dry like can be done to a privatly owned club

cournioni

Manchester Education Committee (MEC) actually Rooster.

And you left out Independant Manchester United Supporters Association (IMUSA). They were responsible for stopping Rupert Murdoch's bid in 1998/9, and it was eventually rejected.

I wouldn't support any violence against anyone. But threatening him and making him feel unwelcome, to say the least is fine with me. He's the one that is persisting with this, not the Man Utd supporters. It is his choice if he wants to have threats thrown his way, because that is what is going to happen and is happening.

The Rooster

Has that idea been put forward PHB, or is it just your own?

It'd be a great idea if it could come off. Probably the second last home game of the season - so in the last game you could give a roaring support to the team to show abandoning them would be the last thing you're thinking of. And of course only if the title race is over - which it very well might not be.

Ideally you'd want the away fans to stay away as well, but it wouldnt be critical.

If it did come off, it would be a tremendous show of unity against Glazer by the fans. Because at the moment he could argue (wrongly, I know), thats its only a noisy minority of nutters who are campaigning against him. This would leave him in no doubt.

Big Ears

PORNAPSTER wrote:

It is his choice if he wants to have threats thrown his way, because that is what is going to happen and is happening.

He is merely acting within the law , and just because he wishes to take over a business (in a law abiding way) is no reason for people to issue death threaths to him and sing songs about killing him .

Headshot

will Glazier take over the club do ye think

i hope not he will ruin united

cournioni

Big Ears wrote:

He is merely acting within the law , and just because he wishes to take over a business (in a law abiding way) is no reason for people to issue death threaths to him and sing songs about killing him .

If someone was putting something you loved under threat what would you do?

Chucky the tree

PORNAPSTER wrote:

If someone was putting something you loved under threat what would you do?

how is he putting united under threat?

cournioni

By putting the club into debt.

Dr Bolouswki

To my chagrin, I find myself agreeing with PHB... what's the big worry? Any PLC has the interests of the company and its shareholders at heart - ergo Uniteds success on the pitch should naturally have a huge influence on their performance off it. Why would an investor buy a company if his intention was to ignore the very thing that made it succesful in the first place?

If Shareholders United could somehow leverage a controlling share, I think it could be a huge and beneficial step for english football to see the fans essentially controlling their club, and more power to SHU if they can somehow do it. Its worth considering that the portrayel of Glazier as some asset stripping, quick buck making gargoyle may be an invention of the press. People are afraid of change. Plus he's ugly. Even Abromivich, in all his benevolent largesse, smacks of being in league with satan.

On a side note, does anyone find the 'not for sale' campaign kinda funny? I mean, its a PLC, it's always for sale!

Big Ears

PORNAPSTER wrote:

By putting the club into debt.

why would he want to lose money............???

Headshot

theres rumors going around that Ralif safin might come in to rescue man united

Ralif safin =billionaire and roman abronovichs good friend

any truth do ye think

Big Ears

snoopdog wrote:

theres rumors going around that Ralif safin might come in to rescue man united

Ralif safin =billionaire and roman abronovichs good friend

any truth do ye think

rescue , if he's Abramocich's friend then isn't he much more likely to ruin the club ?

Headshot

Big Ears wrote:

rescue , if he's Abramocich's friend then isn't he much more likely to ruin the club ?

i personaly think he wont what he wants to do for united is what Roman has done for chelsea

pour all his millions in to buying players for united