United Thread | 2024/25

Status
Not open for further replies.
All fun and games aside the OAP change from 50% to 25% is cuntish,
The late sale fee is cuntish.
The 5% increase is cuntish.

we can say fuck em and laugh (and we all are) but these price rises in the current climate go beyond tribalism even with these twats, god forbid City are think similar

All fans need to keep together on this and say any rise at any club is wrong
 
Last edited:
urban genie said:
All fun and games aside the OAP change from 50% to 25% is cuntish,
The late sale fee is cuntish.
The 5% increase is cuntish.

we can say fuck em and laugh (and we all are) but these price rises in the current climate go beyond tribalism even with these twats, god forbid City are think similar

All fans need to keep together on this and say any rise at any club is wrong
Click to expand...
Absolutely bang on mate - now set up a separate thread for the common sense approach and allow us to continue calling 'em scum............ ;-)

Scum!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
malg said:
I've just completed their survey. Told them I'm happy about the ticket prices as it will enable 'us' to buy players.
Click to expand...

I've gone with :-

"I feel that we are at the start of a beautiful journey, like a gardener watching his juvenile blooms start their blossoming into bouquets of colour and scent"
 
Fans upset about ticket prices. Rebellion v2.0 on the cards before the seasons end so undoubtedly the distraction rumour "United to sign Isak for £150m" cannot be far off.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Fans upset about ticket prices. Rebellion v2.0 on the cards before the seasons end so undoubtedly the distraction rumour "United to sign Isak for £150m" cannot be far off.
Click to expand...
Is Zlatan still playing? He could be the next comeback king after how well it worked out with CR7
They'd be queuing down Warwick Road to buy the tickets and the shirts
 
bluethrunthru said:
Fans upset about ticket prices. Rebellion v2.0 on the cards before the seasons end so undoubtedly the distraction rumour "United to sign Isak for £150m" cannot be far off.
Click to expand...
I see they've accused United of increasing tickets by stealth.i sympathise to a degree, but they haven't been all that stealthy about it.
 

‘A tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme’​

The Blackley and Middleton South MP (and United fan) writes on Ratcliffe and Co’s proposals for the stadium and surrounding area -

Labour’s Andy Burnham claims to be confident of financial support from Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, for the so-called “New Trafford”. This is the proposal to replace Manchester United’s 115 years old ground with a new state of the art, £2 billion stadium on the land of an adjacent rail freight hub.

No Manchester United fan or Labour politician should support these plans. I am both, and believe the proposals are an ill-thought-out concept and wrong in principle.

Where the real problem rests.

United’s problem is not the stadium, which has the largest capacity of any club stadium in the country, it is United’s failure to win sufficient games in the stadium. This is partly the consequence of the loss of focus on the key United product, football, and the poor recruitment of players. Commercial deals are vital, but they have become more important than the football.

According to the Financial Times, Manchester United’s marquee signings lose more value and faster than any other European football club. They are also less productive playing for a smaller percentage of time than other clubs’ major signings. Angel Di Maria, who United bought for £59.7 million in 2014, a British club record at the time, only played for 8% of the available time.

A new stadium will not improve the team, in fact history shows many teams moving into new grounds have a dip in form. This point was put to me succinctly while standing on the terraces at Hillsborough in the 1960s. This ground was considered one of the best in the country at the time, having invested in a large modern cantilever stand. It was regularly chosen for FA Cup semi-finals. A typically dour Yorkshireman seeing his side trailing to United, said “I’m still waiting for the bloody new cantilever stand to score a goal.”

Am I the only person to think there is a distinctly fishy smell when the part owner of United predicts imminent bankruptcy while simultaneously launching an ill-defined scheme costing £2 billion.

What don’t we know?

Some supporters suspect that New Trafford will not be owned by United but leased back from new owners (the current ground is 100% owned by United). Selling the naming rights for the stadium would be extremely lucrative as would building housing on the site of the current stadium and its environs.

Before embarking on a regeneration project, it is usual for viability and impact studies to be undertaken, not in this case. The proposals are as transparent as a block of lead and raise many questions. Inevitably the rail freight terminal would have to be moved to St Helens. Are we really in the business of moving jobs to Merseyside? I think not.

It is also rumoured that the new stadium would be prefabricated abroad and sailed up the Ship Canal and assembled. Few Manchester jobs would be created.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Unsubstantiated claims are that moving the freight would ease congestion at Manchester Piccadilly, but alternatives for potentially £300 million of public subsidy are not being considered. Maybe investment in digital signalling or investment in Platforms 15 and 16 would be more effective.

Alternative uses of public funds.

But this is typical of this scheme, where alternatives for better use of the money have been ignored.

If new homes are to be built, surely better to go with regeneration schemes whose viability has been proved. Holt Town and Victoria North would be more productive sites and help Angela Rayner hit her 1.5 million housing targets. It appears some local politicians have been bewitched by the proximity of football celebrity and lost their common sense.

On a personal note, I find deep irony in the current situation. It could have been avoided if United had accepted an offer from Manchester City Council when we were planning the 2002 Commonwealth Games. We were determined that the Games’ stadium would not become a white elephant. Our plan was to be able to convert the Games’ venue into an 80,000+ replacement or competitor for Wembley. United were the only club with sufficient support to make this viable. I had meetings with Roland Smith, who then chaired United’s board. He rejected the offer.

There were then meetings with City, who bit our hand off. Given City’s smaller fan base, the size of the ground had to be reduced but City’s new home in a state-of-the-art stadium made them attractive to first Thaksin Shinawatra and then to the Abu Dhabi United Group, effectively the Abu Dhabi state. This and the subsequent investment in the team has led to City’s recent spectacular success and then improvements in the ground. Irony or what?!

Coe

Incidentally, what is Sebastian Coe doing anywhere near a Manchester project? Does nobody remember his assault and undermining of Manchester’s bid for investment and the Olympic Games? Somebody should dig out his anti-Manchester quotes and buy him a one-way ticket back to London.

Reeves

When Rachel Reeves announced her new determination to grow the economy with investment in infrastructure there was no surprise that the major schemes were in the south: the Lower Thames Crossing, Heathrow and the Cambridge-Oxford corridor. She also rather embarrassingly claimed no new runways had been built in the country since 1945. Yet her Leeds constituency has jobs dependent on the success of Manchester Airport, which of course built a new runway at the start of this century. Like a drowning person, she is clutching for any straw to save her face as a Northern MP. New Trafford is not that straw.

Obscene

It would be politically obscene when the government is considering cuts to benefits and services to some of the poorest people in the country to present a cheque of hundreds of millions of pounds to a tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme. Sir Jim Ratcliffe could replace the subsidy from public funds he is seeking from the money he doesn’t pay in British taxes. I doubt he would notice it.
 
Bert Swift said:

‘A tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme’​

The Blackley and Middleton South MP (and United fan) writes on Ratcliffe and Co’s proposals for the stadium and surrounding area -

Labour’s Andy Burnham claims to be confident of financial support from Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, for the so-called “New Trafford”. This is the proposal to replace Manchester United’s 115 years old ground with a new state of the art, £2 billion stadium on the land of an adjacent rail freight hub.

No Manchester United fan or Labour politician should support these plans. I am both, and believe the proposals are an ill-thought-out concept and wrong in principle.

Where the real problem rests.

United’s problem is not the stadium, which has the largest capacity of any club stadium in the country, it is United’s failure to win sufficient games in the stadium. This is partly the consequence of the loss of focus on the key United product, football, and the poor recruitment of players. Commercial deals are vital, but they have become more important than the football.

According to the Financial Times, Manchester United’s marquee signings lose more value and faster than any other European football club. They are also less productive playing for a smaller percentage of time than other clubs’ major signings. Angel Di Maria, who United bought for £59.7 million in 2014, a British club record at the time, only played for 8% of the available time.

A new stadium will not improve the team, in fact history shows many teams moving into new grounds have a dip in form. This point was put to me succinctly while standing on the terraces at Hillsborough in the 1960s. This ground was considered one of the best in the country at the time, having invested in a large modern cantilever stand. It was regularly chosen for FA Cup semi-finals. A typically dour Yorkshireman seeing his side trailing to United, said “I’m still waiting for the bloody new cantilever stand to score a goal.”

Am I the only person to think there is a distinctly fishy smell when the part owner of United predicts imminent bankruptcy while simultaneously launching an ill-defined scheme costing £2 billion.

What don’t we know?

Some supporters suspect that New Trafford will not be owned by United but leased back from new owners (the current ground is 100% owned by United). Selling the naming rights for the stadium would be extremely lucrative as would building housing on the site of the current stadium and its environs.

Before embarking on a regeneration project, it is usual for viability and impact studies to be undertaken, not in this case. The proposals are as transparent as a block of lead and raise many questions. Inevitably the rail freight terminal would have to be moved to St Helens. Are we really in the business of moving jobs to Merseyside? I think not.

It is also rumoured that the new stadium would be prefabricated abroad and sailed up the Ship Canal and assembled. Few Manchester jobs would be created.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Unsubstantiated claims are that moving the freight would ease congestion at Manchester Piccadilly, but alternatives for potentially £300 million of public subsidy are not being considered. Maybe investment in digital signalling or investment in Platforms 15 and 16 would be more effective.

Alternative uses of public funds.

But this is typical of this scheme, where alternatives for better use of the money have been ignored.

If new homes are to be built, surely better to go with regeneration schemes whose viability has been proved. Holt Town and Victoria North would be more productive sites and help Angela Rayner hit her 1.5 million housing targets. It appears some local politicians have been bewitched by the proximity of football celebrity and lost their common sense.

On a personal note, I find deep irony in the current situation. It could have been avoided if United had accepted an offer from Manchester City Council when we were planning the 2002 Commonwealth Games. We were determined that the Games’ stadium would not become a white elephant. Our plan was to be able to convert the Games’ venue into an 80,000+ replacement or competitor for Wembley. United were the only club with sufficient support to make this viable. I had meetings with Roland Smith, who then chaired United’s board. He rejected the offer.

There were then meetings with City, who bit our hand off. Given City’s smaller fan base, the size of the ground had to be reduced but City’s new home in a state-of-the-art stadium made them attractive to first Thaksin Shinawatra and then to the Abu Dhabi United Group, effectively the Abu Dhabi state. This and the subsequent investment in the team has led to City’s recent spectacular success and then improvements in the ground. Irony or what?!

Coe

Incidentally, what is Sebastian Coe doing anywhere near a Manchester project? Does nobody remember his assault and undermining of Manchester’s bid for investment and the Olympic Games? Somebody should dig out his anti-Manchester quotes and buy him a one-way ticket back to London.

Reeves

When Rachel Reeves announced her new determination to grow the economy with investment in infrastructure there was no surprise that the major schemes were in the south: the Lower Thames Crossing, Heathrow and the Cambridge-Oxford corridor. She also rather embarrassingly claimed no new runways had been built in the country since 1945. Yet her Leeds constituency has jobs dependent on the success of Manchester Airport, which of course built a new runway at the start of this century. Like a drowning person, she is clutching for any straw to save her face as a Northern MP. New Trafford is not that straw.

Obscene

It would be politically obscene when the government is considering cuts to benefits and services to some of the poorest people in the country to present a cheque of hundreds of millions of pounds to a tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme. Sir Jim Ratcliffe could replace the subsidy from public funds he is seeking from the money he doesn’t pay in British taxes. I doubt he would notice it.
Click to expand...

More lazy anti Abu Dhabi nonsense. Fuck him and fuck his shit club.
 
Bert Swift said:

‘A tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme’​

The Blackley and Middleton South MP (and United fan) writes on Ratcliffe and Co’s proposals for the stadium and surrounding area -

Labour’s Andy Burnham claims to be confident of financial support from Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, for the so-called “New Trafford”. This is the proposal to replace Manchester United’s 115 years old ground with a new state of the art, £2 billion stadium on the land of an adjacent rail freight hub.

No Manchester United fan or Labour politician should support these plans. I am both, and believe the proposals are an ill-thought-out concept and wrong in principle.

Where the real problem rests.

United’s problem is not the stadium, which has the largest capacity of any club stadium in the country, it is United’s failure to win sufficient games in the stadium. This is partly the consequence of the loss of focus on the key United product, football, and the poor recruitment of players. Commercial deals are vital, but they have become more important than the football.

According to the Financial Times, Manchester United’s marquee signings lose more value and faster than any other European football club. They are also less productive playing for a smaller percentage of time than other clubs’ major signings. Angel Di Maria, who United bought for £59.7 million in 2014, a British club record at the time, only played for 8% of the available time.

A new stadium will not improve the team, in fact history shows many teams moving into new grounds have a dip in form. This point was put to me succinctly while standing on the terraces at Hillsborough in the 1960s. This ground was considered one of the best in the country at the time, having invested in a large modern cantilever stand. It was regularly chosen for FA Cup semi-finals. A typically dour Yorkshireman seeing his side trailing to United, said “I’m still waiting for the bloody new cantilever stand to score a goal.”

Am I the only person to think there is a distinctly fishy smell when the part owner of United predicts imminent bankruptcy while simultaneously launching an ill-defined scheme costing £2 billion.

What don’t we know?

Some supporters suspect that New Trafford will not be owned by United but leased back from new owners (the current ground is 100% owned by United). Selling the naming rights for the stadium would be extremely lucrative as would building housing on the site of the current stadium and its environs.

Before embarking on a regeneration project, it is usual for viability and impact studies to be undertaken, not in this case. The proposals are as transparent as a block of lead and raise many questions. Inevitably the rail freight terminal would have to be moved to St Helens. Are we really in the business of moving jobs to Merseyside? I think not.

It is also rumoured that the new stadium would be prefabricated abroad and sailed up the Ship Canal and assembled. Few Manchester jobs would be created.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Unsubstantiated claims are that moving the freight would ease congestion at Manchester Piccadilly, but alternatives for potentially £300 million of public subsidy are not being considered. Maybe investment in digital signalling or investment in Platforms 15 and 16 would be more effective.

Alternative uses of public funds.

But this is typical of this scheme, where alternatives for better use of the money have been ignored.

If new homes are to be built, surely better to go with regeneration schemes whose viability has been proved. Holt Town and Victoria North would be more productive sites and help Angela Rayner hit her 1.5 million housing targets. It appears some local politicians have been bewitched by the proximity of football celebrity and lost their common sense.

On a personal note, I find deep irony in the current situation. It could have been avoided if United had accepted an offer from Manchester City Council when we were planning the 2002 Commonwealth Games. We were determined that the Games’ stadium would not become a white elephant. Our plan was to be able to convert the Games’ venue into an 80,000+ replacement or competitor for Wembley. United were the only club with sufficient support to make this viable. I had meetings with Roland Smith, who then chaired United’s board. He rejected the offer.

There were then meetings with City, who bit our hand off. Given City’s smaller fan base, the size of the ground had to be reduced but City’s new home in a state-of-the-art stadium made them attractive to first Thaksin Shinawatra and then to the Abu Dhabi United Group, effectively the Abu Dhabi state. This and the subsequent investment in the team has led to City’s recent spectacular success and then improvements in the ground. Irony or what?!

Coe

Incidentally, what is Sebastian Coe doing anywhere near a Manchester project? Does nobody remember his assault and undermining of Manchester’s bid for investment and the Olympic Games? Somebody should dig out his anti-Manchester quotes and buy him a one-way ticket back to London.

Reeves

When Rachel Reeves announced her new determination to grow the economy with investment in infrastructure there was no surprise that the major schemes were in the south: the Lower Thames Crossing, Heathrow and the Cambridge-Oxford corridor. She also rather embarrassingly claimed no new runways had been built in the country since 1945. Yet her Leeds constituency has jobs dependent on the success of Manchester Airport, which of course built a new runway at the start of this century. Like a drowning person, she is clutching for any straw to save her face as a Northern MP. New Trafford is not that straw.

Obscene

It would be politically obscene when the government is considering cuts to benefits and services to some of the poorest people in the country to present a cheque of hundreds of millions of pounds to a tax exile’s half-baked misbegotten scheme. Sir Jim Ratcliffe could replace the subsidy from public funds he is seeking from the money he doesn’t pay in British taxes. I doubt he would notice it.
Click to expand...
He is so right about Seb Coe. He is useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top