United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bald fraud said:
It’s gathering pace way too quickly this. You just know the scummy bastards will get this funding. Absolutely disgusting!
Click to expand...
One massive economic case will be made for this. I am becoming more and more convinced the refurb needed for the Taylor report was done using low cost legal materials at the time and possibly the 95 works for the Euros as well. 30 year approx shelf life is up, Schools still standing 60 years later etc but they don't have 70K people in them at anyone time on multiple levels bouncing around to worry about in a stress test.

Football tourism is massive for the City, fans of both clubs travel in from all over the globe, hotels, hospitality, retail etc all see a boost and local employment is up. Imagine the 95 stand built to replace the 66 govt funded world cup one is deemed unsafe, shut or reduced capacity. Pyramid effect kicks in across the city on match days. Massive club? Massive tax dodgers at the top? Can't get around that they are a massive contributor as an entity to the Greater Manchester economy.

If this comes to light as a know issue for decades amongst the Swamp hierarchy ignored as a future me problem then this is mismanagement and unacceptable risk and raises a serious question.

Should the UK Government bail them out as a necessity for the area or let market forces dictate that a privately owned company electing to not maintain physical infrastructure over a 30 year period suffers the known consequences? If they do settle that the Rags must continue trading as is, just like the banks had to, do we the taxpayer get to own a % of the club as a guarantee that we'll get the money back - like RBS?

Aside: imagine they do have to reduce capacity on safety grounds, reduced gate revenue, reduced turnover, we all know where this leads on current PSR rules.
 
Cumbie Blue said:
One massive economic case will be made for this. I am becoming more and more convinced the refurb needed for the Taylor report was done using low cost legal materials at the time and possibly the 95 works for the Euros as well. 30 year approx shelf life is up, Schools still standing 60 years later etc but they don't have 70K people in them at anyone time on multiple levels bouncing around to worry about in a stress test.

Football tourism is massive for the City, fans of both clubs travel in from all over the globe, hotels, hospitality, retail etc all see a boost and local employment is up. Imagine the 95 stand built to replace the 66 govt funded world cup one is deemed unsafe, shut or reduced capacity. Pyramid effect kicks in across the city on match days. Massive club? Massive tax dodgers at the top? Can't get around that they are a massive contributor as an entity to the Greater Manchester economy.

If this comes to light as a know issue for decades amongst the Swamp hierarchy ignored as a future me problem then this is mismanagement and unacceptable risk and raises a serious question.

Should the UK Government bail them out as a necessity for the area or let market forces dictate that a privately owned company electing to not maintain physical infrastructure over a 30 year period suffers the known consequences? If they do settle that the Rags must continue trading as is, just like the banks had to, do we the taxpayer get to own a % of the club as a guarantee that we'll get the money back - like RBS?

Aside: imagine they do have to reduce capacity on safety grounds, reduced gate revenue, reduced turnover, we all know where this leads on current PSR rules.
Click to expand...
A privately owned company whose biggest shareholders and the company itself, are registered in 3 different, UK tax avoiding shelters as well. Still, they did it for Tata Steel and if Ratcliffe can get Infosys involved, Sunak will write the government cheque himself!!
 
johnevans said:
'The sheer audacity of even thinking about it in the first place..' Correct! Exactly correct! Exactly f**king correct!

I never thought it would be possible for me to despise that club, its entitled owners/managers and the entitled element of its support, any more than I do nowadays. But hearing the 'softening up job' that has started in the media over the past day or so, well I have found some extra capacity to despise them all the yet more. And I've been despising the lot of them since being taken to welcome home the United team at Albert Square after it had reached the FA Cup final against all the odds after the Munich air disaster, only to witness the awful way the club and its owners/managers treated those affected in the years post-Munich, post- (if I may say) 'Manchester's Disaster'

The so-called 'football journalists' who lurk on here should grow the cojones to take on that wretched, venal and self-centred club properly and ask some long overdue, pertinent questions about its behaviour down the years.

They might then come up with media articles which would explain just why the answer to The Red Filth's expectation that the taxpayer fills up the outstretched begging bowl should be a firm 'NO!'. And while they're doing it, maybe those partial, lily-livered twunts in the media might want to explore the following list as well:

(a) why did it take 40 years for The Red Filth to organise a proper fund-raiser for the families affected by the Munich air disaster?
(b) why did it have to be the supporters who paid for it with the 'testimonial match'?
(c) why did the Cantona entourage earn more in payment than the survivors and their families?
(d) how was it that lot secured the nod to be one of the 1966 World Cup grounds ahead of City, which had a superior ground altogether in Maine Road, with 32000 seats in situ, approximately 40% more that at Old Trafford, with first class (for the time) floodlighting and similar transport links?
(e) how much taxpayer money has been pumped into that place over the years (and not just the building of the first cantilever stand for the 1966 World Cup)?
(f) what about the way in which that awful club has abused its power (along with others) to meet its own ends (including the change in sharing attendance receipts, the formation of the Premier League, the threatened formation of the European Super League and so on..)?
(g) how much money has the Glazer family taken out of the club in dividend payments (well North of £1bn in my estimation) all the while neglecting the upkeep of the ground they'd have us believe is 'so important'?

And so on and so on..

As you say in your post, just even floating the idea that there might be taxpayer funding under the guise of 'Levelling Up' for this purpose is an appalling, distasteful thing to suggest. Like with all the things that bunch of no-marks has been up to over the years, the people behind it have got their puppets in the press already trying to rally support for their grand purpose.

'Bunch of chancers' indeed..
Click to expand...
Brilliant post John,and perfectly summed up by the softening up job that has started in the media,and to get everyone onside with the idea that it’s ok for tax payers to foot the bill,and the reason that so called journalists don’t go digging and write article’s is quite simply they are being paid to ONLY produce positive articles on these chancers,money talks and bullshit walks …
 
As a resident of Trafford I remember the last time the scum increased the capacity at the ground. Local residents objected to the proposal saying there was insufficient parking. For that reason the council insisted that as part of the permission, they had to run a Park and Ride scheme from Carrington.
It lasted about 2 games before being forgotten.
Whether the rags fund any revamp or London pays for it, I will be reminding Trafford Town Council what happened last time.
 
Cumbie Blue said:
Local authorities have been allocated greater amounts for larger scale projects, that's why they need Burnham on board to confirm it's in the areas interests, would be a (stifles laughter) loss to the community and also financial detriment to the area. Still an excellent use of public funds as pupils continue to be taught in tin sheds rather then classrooms due to unsafe concrete. I'm sure all impacted would agree?

Does make me wonder how bad a state the Swamp is in just now. Awful lot of development work done late 1980's and into the 90's including the big new stand in 95/96 that had to be ready for the Euros - quick google and useful lifespan of RAAC is 30 years but I'm speculating wildly with no concrete (he he) evidence to back this up - might go for a job at the Mail.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Had another look around. The Morecambe, Eden Project, got £50mill. Neither £20mill or £50mill will scratch the surface for a new United ground. We’re talking billions. The Government aren’t going to give United billions, let alone £100mill’s, especially after recently scraping HS2 to Manchester citing the escalating costs. As we know, new stadia never come in on or under budget. Scruffy Jim will have to do what Levy, Real Madrid and Barcelona have done, take out loans and debt to build a new stadium, or to redevelop Old Toilet.
 
horlock_was_super said:
Ha ha ha Irish sly sport rag on The Chase. Wanted to win enough to take his daughter to the swamp so she could experience a big stadium atmosphere.
(stop laughing at the back and the middle and errr the front too)
Got caught so she’s going to have to - his words; “shout at the television “
Mrs Super Kev wasn’t impressed when I cheered and said fuck off you rag ****.
She doesn’t like the word rag.
Click to expand...
Is she on her RAG lol
 
I think it is going to be very hard for them to get Govt funding and probably shows where they are…

There is no precedent for this kind of thing and helping out American billionaires, Monaco residents and companies who pay footballers hundreds of thousands pounds a week is not going to go down well.

People can point to West Ham/ City to lesser of an extent. But these clubs have helped out regardless of good deal etc.

When you host these big things there are numerous examples of stadiums then being left to rot, some of the reason why Qatar did temporary ones.

They have legacy teams and getting the athletics stadium to maintain and be useful is pretty much top of the list.

Then you have how annoyed we would be, but Tottenham worse, Arsenal, Chelsea would be very interested and expect to be next.

The only thing in memory would be the Real Madrid training ground, but it’s clutching straws TBH and probably a good example why a Government should not do anything to help in that way.

I unfortunately will never be surprised by things Govt do, but this I would be very, very close.

It’s a huge own goal (pardon the pun).
 
blue cigar said:
Just a thought, if they get funding why can't we? New stand or even new stadium, we should ask if only to weaken their case.
Cockney scum
Click to expand...
If they were to get funding from the government then EVERY other club in the so called "English Football Pyramid" need to make immediate requests for funding of developments to their grounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top