He's saying it will make us more marketable and create more money in other continents. Why would he care about our marketability when he's no longer part of us? He'd surely respect the new owners ability to do what the **** he wants, since thats how he's going about it.
again, part of the press conference. what do you expect him to say? "you HAVE to respect it", he said. i don't though. can we get off this topic now? it really doesn't matter what bruce or any of the players say and whether they privately agree with us or the owner is completely irrelevant.
You're assuming that when he says he wants to change the name for marketability reasons, that he's telling the truth. Who knows, anything appears possible at the moment.
I only put it up for information - it shows SB being 'diplomatic' whilst at the same time looking like he wished it had fook all to do with him and his job.
You can't just give back heritage. Tradition/ Heritage is built up over the years, it's not just conjured up on the spot. It's why Hull Tigers is a ****e idea. But you can destroy it instantly.
Anyone who actually thinks that an experienced football man, both playing and managing, will speak out against a man that pulls the purse strings is seriously deluded. SB is doing what all good managers do, toeing the party line and remaining as diplomatic as he can, no matter what his personal beliefs are. Don`t forget SB will have gone to Mr Allam with his wish list for January, the last thing he is going to do is rock the boat, which will seriously reflect on his CV for any other roles he wishes to move onto after us, and seriously harm the relationship he appears to have developed with the owner, thus limiting his spending power.
Or maybe he knows how football has changed and its all to do with money and who's got it and the need to get more. Seem to remember all the Anti Glazer family protestors had a good case but Fergie gave them short shrift and killed their campaign
Tsk Chazz, there's still a noisy minority there wearing their scarves and chanting against them. At every home game. Cheering the team on and enjoying the success the Glaziers brought them. But angrily.
I don't really understand the Glazer thing? Was it just the debt they built up against the club that people didn't like? I mean yeah it's a shoddy was of doing business but it's hardly going to cripple them is it?
They didn't change the name or interfere with the club Ferguson had built, which is maybe why he supported the new owners. Ferguson is now a director and will have an influence on what Man U decide to do, if anything about our name change. Given his statements in the past do you think he agrees with the Premier League becoming a mirror image of Rugby League? Do you think he'll have has much influence in the corridors of the Premier League and the FA has Assem Allam if he does oppose wholesale Americanisation of British football?
The fans had part ownership of the club through a public limited company. The Glazer's made it a private limited company of which they were the sole owners. The fact that they borrowed the money to buy the club and paid off the debt using the club's profits poured more oil on the fire.
I think, respectfully, you should learn the difference between a public limited company and a private limited company. When British Gas was privatised it became a public limited company.
