Election 2024

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

How are Labour doing after their first 12 months

  • Total voters
    23
brb said:
Problem is he diverted £3B investment away from the UK, so it does involve our politics whether we like it or not mate. The financial money men control the economy. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/brexiteer-jim-ratcliffe-abandons-3bn-uk-investment-397703/

And he's also been a top donor allegedly of the Labour Party but I can't find any financial figures supporting that.

Which in itself is weird because he was a supporter of Keir Starmer but now he's coming out with this stuff.... https://www.tatler.com/article/sir-jim-ratcliffe-backs-labour-in-general-election

Maybe he feels now that KS didn't deliver on his promises (migration).

Edit: I thought i'd also added that he donated £500k to the Tories one time, to stop Corbyn getting in.
Click to expand...


Like, I'm going to say something ground breaking, it's possible he's just a bit of a ****ing idiot who has a successful business.

He's saying this stuff because he's fell for it on social media, like any other random bloke you've met.

Just like Elon Musk continuously falls for it.

My issue with Starmer is thats he's weak

His response should have been this "Ratcliffe came across as an ignorant misinformed bigot to be honest, I haven't really got much to say about it."

The left voters would have absolutely loved that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
Welshie said:
Like, I'm going to say something ground breaking, it's possible he's just a bit of a ****ing idiot who has a successful business.

He's saying this stuff because he's fell for it on social media, like any other random bloke you've met.

Just like Elon Musk continuously falls for it.

My issue with Starmer is thats he's weak

His response should have been this "Ratcliffe came across as an ignorant misinformed bigot to be honest, I haven't really got much to say about it."

The left voters would have absolutely loved that.
Click to expand...
Well he's a shareholder in Manchester United so maybe he is a ****ing idiot, I can see why a Newcastle fan might be upset. <whistle><laugh>
 
Sir Keir Starmer has labelled comments about immigration made by billionaire Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe as "offensive and wrong".

www.bbc.co.uk

PM asks Sir Jim Ratcliffe to apologise for saying UK 'colonised by immigrants'

Sir Keir Starmer says comments by the businessman and Manchester United co-owner are "offensive and wrong".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

In his rebuke on Wednesday evening, Sir Keir added that Britain was "a proud, tolerant and diverse country" and called on Sir Jim to apologise.
 
brb said:
Well he's a shareholder in Manchester United so maybe he is a ****ing idiot, I can see why a Newcastle fan might be upset. <whistle><laugh>
Click to expand...

Brings us nicely round to why PSR is total bollocks ... the amount of debt the Glazers put United in is only factored into the PSR calculation in terms of the annual interest expense i.e between £40 and £50 million a year (and something like £1.2 billion over the period of Glazer ownership <yikes> ) ... what isn't clear is whether this is actually paid or is being 'capitalised' which counts as being paid but actually means that it's just added to the outstanding loan balance making it a bigger loan and therefore increasing annual interest amounts on it ... either way United will continue to satisfy any PSR calculation because it is based on the 'income statement' (P&L) .... but

.. if the lenders were to get nervous and
call in the loans, the likelihood is that United would go under, or would at least have to sell Old Trafford (I'm conjecturing here tbf) but my point is this - my club and others, haven't got that kind of 'financial risk' - the losses sustained under the current PSR calculations are way less of a risk to the actual existence of clubs than the type of debt burden United are carrying ... and PSR is supposed to help secure the longevity of individual football clubs... hmmm
 
brb said:
Sir Keir Starmer has labelled comments about immigration made by billionaire Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe as "offensive and wrong".

www.bbc.co.uk

PM asks Sir Jim Ratcliffe to apologise for saying UK 'colonised by immigrants'

Sir Keir Starmer says comments by the businessman and Manchester United co-owner are "offensive and wrong".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

In his rebuke on Wednesday evening, Sir Keir added that Britain was "a proud, tolerant and diverse country" and called on Sir Jim to apologise.
Click to expand...

Not the first 'Sir Jim' to be a bit of a ****...
 
Welshie said:
Like, I'm going to say something ground breaking, it's possible he's just a bit of a ****ing idiot who has a successful business.

He's saying this stuff because he's fell for it on social media, like any other random bloke you've met.

Just like Elon Musk continuously falls for it.

My issue with Starmer is thats he's weak

His response should have been this "Ratcliffe came across as an ignorant misinformed bigot to be honest, I haven't really got much to say about it."

The left voters would have absolutely loved that.
Click to expand...
Lives in Finland btw^^^
 
  • Haha
Reactions: brb
brb said:
Sir Keir Starmer has labelled comments about immigration made by billionaire Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe as "offensive and wrong".

www.bbc.co.uk

PM asks Sir Jim Ratcliffe to apologise for saying UK 'colonised by immigrants'

Sir Keir Starmer says comments by the businessman and Manchester United co-owner are "offensive and wrong".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

In his rebuke on Wednesday evening, Sir Keir added that Britain was "a proud, tolerant and diverse country" and called on Sir Jim to apologise.
Click to expand...
Oh please:emoticon-0119-puke::emoticon-0119-puke:

So Tolerant we don’t deport criminals that illegally invade our borders, blow up our concerts, decapitate our soldiers in the streets of London and systematically rape our kids because they’re white

**** tolerance
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Diego, Easternwhite, duggie2000 and 1 other person
FosseFilberto said:
Brings us nicely round to why PSR is total bollocks ... the amount of debt the Glazers put United in is only factored into the PSR calculation in terms of the annual interest expense i.e between £40 and £50 million a year (and something like £1.2 billion over the period of Glazer ownership <yikes> ) ... what isn't clear is whether this is actually paid or is being 'capitalised' which counts as being paid but actually means that it's just added to the outstanding loan balance making it a bigger loan and therefore increasing annual interest amounts on it ... either way United will continue to satisfy any PSR calculation because it is based on the 'income statement' (P&L) .... but

.. if the lenders were to get nervous and
call in the loans, the likelihood is that United would go under, or would at least have to sell Old Trafford (I'm conjecturing here tbf) but my point is this - my club and others, haven't got that kind of 'financial risk' - the losses sustained under the current PSR calculations are way less of a risk to the actual existence of clubs than the type of debt burden United are carrying ... and PSR is supposed to help secure the longevity of individual football clubs... hmmm
Click to expand...
Should have built a large, cash rich global support over the years to make the club more stable. Sadly, like Everton, Forest etc, Leicester broke the rules. The PL clubs voted for it, so can’t go moaning now it bites after using some share return rule to avoid previously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FosseFilberto
@Sucky , I just found out, we are going to give an extra half billion pounds in funding to Ukraine for air defence lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky
Welshie said:
Why the **** are we chatting about Leicester and PSR
Click to expand...

... because we can ... and because your lot will be one of the next to get it ... an unfortunate fact of timing - if you'd been able to throw millions at buying success for decades prior to PSR coming in and effectively barring any newcomers doing the same ... you'd have been fine ...

No real difference (allowing for inflation) in what Citeh and Chelsea have done in the last 25 years to what United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs (ranked in order of Premier League success) did during in the 25 years before that ... unfettered spending ...
 
Peej said:
Should have built a large, cash rich global support over the years to make the club more stable. Sadly, like Everton, Forest etc, Leicester broke the rules. The PL clubs voted for it, so can’t go moaning now it bites after using some share return rule to avoid previously.
Click to expand...

No 'share return' (whatever that is) ... simply moved our financial accounting date by a month - which all companies are able to do <whistle>
 
FosseFilberto said:
No 'share return' (whatever that is) ... simply moved our financial accounting date by a month - which all companies are able to do <whistle>
Click to expand...
The one PL share that all clubs in the league hold, Leicester returned theirs early. Either way, it just delayed the punishment by a year or so.

Doing so, now when the club Is in such a good position was the best outcome really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back