Unless the rumors about Xi being a United fan is true, it’s unlikely you can find someone to outbid MBS.
How would everyone feel about United being owned by an emperor?
Are the Glazers preparing for a sale? | Saudis deny the news
- Thread starter RedTillI'mDead
- Start date
- Status
How would everyone feel about United being owned by an emperor?
The integrity of the sport is and has always been questionable. How much varies between leagues and/or countries and/or level of competition. However we're talking about different types of crimes here. Financial crime in football is not something that affects society, it doesn't physically hurt the general population in any way or take anything away from their liberties. It's people within a sporting community trying to get around financial rules which might benefit them, sometimes it's individuals benefiting at the cost of the clubs and players. I don't think that's compatible to supporting a club owned by a person like Mohammad Bin Salman. If that were my employer, the person that would pay my salary I would quit. I'd question any manager or player that would take money from that man (perhaps excluding people already under contract).
There will be riots outside OT if these sub-humans even attempt a takeover.
The opposition to the Glazer takeover will look like a picnic by comparison.
Same as MBS. He's responsible for similar atrocities. Don't know how he'd be able to own the club as there would be Winnieh the Pooh figures at every match be it from home fans, away fans or both. His fragile little heart couldn't handle it.
If he is able at all to buy a football club in England then England need to think about their laws regarding business ownership in the country. I don't think the government would at all like either person to own such a large and famous local business.
As a journalist, there’s no way in hell im supporting this club anymore if the Saudi’s take over
Actually, the way the Chinese like to operate, one of his cronies will own the club, he won’t be directly linked.
Absolutely, the question would just be if the Glazers would be affected by it if they are even considering it in the first place. They don't strike me as such. First of all they are Jewish which might matter when dealing with people that are openly on record as wanting to kill Jews. Secondly they've been involved as a family in sport ownership for 24 years. It might have been Malcolm that started it and had the passion for it but he died 5 years ago and we've only heard from the family that they don't want to sell. Thirdly they don't seem unethical, they are charitable and seemingly free of controversies (at least major ones from what I can tell). I just don't see them selling the club there
Sure but that can be seen coming from a mile away. I don't know how the laws in the UK are but I now in many of the Nordic countries they are strict, especially when it comes to land ownership.
14 Years, Yes Fourteen years after a leveraged buyout of which the Glazers put up the club against the £790m loan the club still owes over £450m while they promote the brand furiously in order to pay obscene interest amounts and line their own pockets,they have taken out over one Billion pounds in interest payments and dividends,yes they have supported the 3 managers since 2013 but the net spend since 2017 has been £42m,clearly the Glazers never bought the club to fight for titles but to extract has much as possible for themselves, IF they sell to the Saudis then its very much mission accomplished for them from a business sense,they came in with nothing,offered nothing but walked away dripping with gold,make no mistake,they have been terrible owners for this club and held it back to what it could truly achieve on the pitch while concentrating on maximising what it could achieve off it for themselves!
The Saudis however are a different entity,if one looks purely at the football side of it then its scary what the club could become on the pitch,debt free overnight at the stroke of a pen,new stadium development, world class players like Mbappe etc (probably saying he wants a new challenge in england) wanting a slice of a waking juggernaut,self sustaining,going head to head with the noisy neighbours on a level playing field in the prem and champions league,would you not prefer that to the Glazers and fighting for 4th.....
From a moral viewpoint,you cant please all the people all of the time,Murdoch (sky),Knighton,Qatar a few years ago,everyone had mixed opinions and our current owners are not exactly whiter than white, whatever happens the club goes on as it has done for over a 100 years,you cant stop being a red including moving forward as modern day football evolves,ask any City fan if they regret a takeover from the Sheiks,their not remotely bothered who owns the club as long as they are on course for a quadruple playing brilliant football with a brilliant coach,do we want to be left behind?? we will be if we remain in the current ownership.
The Saudis however are a different entity,if one looks purely at the football side of it then its scary what the club could become on the pitch,debt free overnight at the stroke of a pen,new stadium development, world class players like Mbappe etc (probably saying he wants a new challenge in england) wanting a slice of a waking juggernaut,self sustaining,going head to head with the noisy neighbours on a level playing field in the prem and champions league,would you not prefer that to the Glazers and fighting for 4th.....
From a moral viewpoint,you cant please all the people all of the time,Murdoch (sky),Knighton,Qatar a few years ago,everyone had mixed opinions and our current owners are not exactly whiter than white, whatever happens the club goes on as it has done for over a 100 years,you cant stop being a red including moving forward as modern day football evolves,ask any City fan if they regret a takeover from the Sheiks,their not remotely bothered who owns the club as long as they are on course for a quadruple playing brilliant football with a brilliant coach,do we want to be left behind?? we will be if we remain in the current ownership.
It isn't, you're changing the argument. The argument is that we are hypocrites for giving them money for their oil, which you denied, and were you said you are a victim of society. Man up for your choices. You like human rights but not so much you want to give up your oil fueled lifestyle.
If Xi wanted to buy United, you can be sure there will not be any problem with any laws.
Anyway, there’s no indication that the Chinese are interested for a couple of years now.
Bang on the money. "Everyone's a hypocrite so nobody should have an opinion or strive to make the world less shit!"
Such cretinous reductionism.
They also havent, they have taken more than 1bn out since they took over. Moyes got little love from them and apart from one season Mourinho didnt get full backing. There was and is a real need of splashing the cash on the squad as there were around 10 years of under investment since they bought us. The stadium ieeds a bit more than a lick of paint . Cant see it happen under the Glazers.
In no form am I voting for the Saudis
This won't be good PR but legally, the fans cannot do much.
If they run the club in the right way and don't use us as a cash cow (which btw is how these supposed American saints have been doing for years, bleeding normal match-going fans dry), I wouldn't care as much if they did another Glazers on this.
People going all knight-on-a-white-horse on this need to remember the UK government has been selling arms to the Saudis for years, implicitly condoning the atrocities committed by their regime (just yesterday it was deemed illegal) and letting them invest over here in property and other business. We also buy their oil.
No doubt it'd be controversial but if our club goes back to being run as a club, as opposed to a business which penny pinches while making billions, I cannot see how that'll be bad for Manchester United FC. The morality of a sale will definitely be dubious but what if they said, we'll freeze prices for loyal fans for 10 years. How much of a difference would that make to normal people?
All I'm saying is that it is not as a white and black as some people would like to make it out because the Glazers are cynical pricks who are exploiting a club which represents more than just entertainment to Manchester United fans. They'd never run us like Liverpool is run. If they did, I'd be more willing to say a hard 'No!' to this transaction.
If they run the club in the right way and don't use us as a cash cow (which btw is how these supposed American saints have been doing for years, bleeding normal match-going fans dry), I wouldn't care as much if they did another Glazers on this.
People going all knight-on-a-white-horse on this need to remember the UK government has been selling arms to the Saudis for years, implicitly condoning the atrocities committed by their regime (just yesterday it was deemed illegal) and letting them invest over here in property and other business. We also buy their oil.
No doubt it'd be controversial but if our club goes back to being run as a club, as opposed to a business which penny pinches while making billions, I cannot see how that'll be bad for Manchester United FC. The morality of a sale will definitely be dubious but what if they said, we'll freeze prices for loyal fans for 10 years. How much of a difference would that make to normal people?
All I'm saying is that it is not as a white and black as some people would like to make it out because the Glazers are cynical pricks who are exploiting a club which represents more than just entertainment to Manchester United fans. They'd never run us like Liverpool is run. If they did, I'd be more willing to say a hard 'No!' to this transaction.
Yeah keep on changing the world by decrying a possible Saudi takeover of a sports club on an Internet forum. While in the meantime looking away at the countless deaths by filthy oils wars by the west, by the filthy regimes on both sides, and by your votes for it, all for our way of life. Everyone denounces how Europe raided Africa for richness now, but we have been doing and are doing the same in the Middle East. You consume the richness and look away at the uncomfortable truths, even actively attacking the truth by calling it "cretinous reductionism" and such. This is the hypocrisy that I attack. You're like a coke user or slave buyer who is appalled when the top dealer buys the biggest house in town. You either buy the stuff from the bad people and don't cry when they buy stuff from the money, or don't buy and you can take the moral high stand. You are a buyer but taking the moral high stand.
If they are OK with their government being the cause of atrocities in other countries, selling guns to the exact same regime, why would they care if a football club being sold to that regime?
Simply not true. I would advise you to do research on those fraudulent numbers thrown out by Red Knights in the Glazers smear campaign. For one, look how much of the debt the Glazers backed with their own assets. The 1bn number is nothing but an estimate of how much the debt will cost over the duration of the loan (this is not accounting for refinancing activities that have and will take place). Leveraged buyouts are common place, don't let the fear-mongering scare you.
you sound angry. Who is claiming to change the world ? No one! You just made it up to suit your bizarre and ranting narrative. You whinged about ad hominem but then equate people criticizing a Saudi buyout of Manchester United to coke users (my ancestral country has been destroyed by the drug so I find that deeply offensive) and slave owners (
).Get a grip.
Personally, I think there's still a lot of scope for growth. The biggest European clubs are going to use their influence to change the ways TV deals are structured and will have plans for taking advantage of social media and the way it is used to consume football content.
They probably wouldn't but they should.
Wtf? Where did I mention I would rather have either? Just b3cause I don't want one to buy us doesn't mean I endorse the one who currently does.
The bolded are simply not true.
- The first two bolded comments about the Glazer's are nothing but a twisting of facts. See my post above.
- The second bolded point about net spend is simply not true and can easily be fact checked. Here you go.
The lengths some of you are reaching to justify Saudi ownership is disturbing. Football is not that important and United risks being looked at in the same context as City and PSG, regardless of their history.
Be careful what you wish for.
Last edited:
Get a grip.
What a weak counter argument, if any.
It must be so convenient to fill up your car tomorrow and dismiss where we got it from, and attack anyone who reminds you.Well here are facts.. Dont give a crap if the Glazer arent taking it all out into their pockets. They are using utd to pay their debt that is the same. We have invested less than 600m in 10 years its shambolic when you look how much we have generated to pay off their debts. This club would be swimming in cash without the Glazers.
The Saudis wouldnt really need to give us cash to spend, just stop taking it out.
Your entire line of reasoning is based off of false assumptions and is weak. "He owns a car... OWNED!". Gosh, how do l respond to that?What a weak counter argument, if any.
I didn't attack anyone. I think it's daft to be called a hypocrite for criticizing the Saudi regime. Let's just turn a blind eye to everything they do, because we've touched oil in some way before, right?
I don't and never have owned a car. I take public transit that runs on electricity. My heating is electric-based, and I use heating because if I didn't, I would die in winter.
But even if I did use a car, I would be allowed to criticize morally questionable regimes.
True or not it doesnt negate the rest of the post
Do you actually HAVE a counter argument, or do you just want to keep trying to ridicule the messenger? Surely even if you don't use a car, you get delivered your beard oil by one.
You do know that many businesses in this country have Saudi links including telecoms and fuel,maybe the anti Saudis amongst us should boycott such things...
I don't have a beard or beard oil. Not sure what you're trying to argue. I'm going to disengage from this pointless discussion.
Edit, oh I get it .You think I'm a hipster! Ha. I'm not. And you have the gall to cry about others with ad hominem
Nah you dismissed the argument by saying you don't have a car, while you surely are consuming their products. Hence, I conclude you don't have a counter argument, and are just trying to cheaply dismiss it because the very thought that you are a cynical consumer confuses and frightens you.
He'll be saying anyone who breathes air has no right to criticise any evil in the world next.
From the look of your recent posts, I'm amazed you've lasted 200+ posts.
Lots of intolerance on this thread it seems, just exactly what some are accusing the Saudis of....If Utd was approached by China there would be "what about human rights etc" if the club was approached by anyone for that matter there will always be someone looking at the negatives,by the way do you know the current owners donate to causes not exactly whiter than white blimey...
I don't think anything was out of order and just opinion, although some of the opinion against it was directly against the person and not about the premise. But hey, I'll take it and not try a Schwalbe like you to attempt to give your opponent a yellow or red . It persists to seem a very uncomfortable and to be attacked truth that we are enabling the deaths in oil wars, the hatred of gays, the prosecution of political adversaries etc. by buying their products, and looking away at all that, not really ready or equipped to discuss it, while being morally outraged for the same reasons when they buy with our money.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime." —Balzac
I would....better the money being ploughed into the UK than held by the over rich Saudi's
Do we also get to ignore this too?
What about this?
Or this?
To put it bluntly, leveraged buyouts are common place regardless if you don't like it. Borrowing against an asset is common place (people do it everyday to buy homes). Nothing the Glazers did was nefarious (risky yes) and the club, by all accounts, is in a stable financial situation.
But it's just the sun right? I mean no other sources or any confirmation of interest, whether Glazers want to sell or not!
Ok, so would you rather have glaziers who have stolen money from the club and fans, don't invest their own money and laden us with debt we didn't previously have or the Saudis?
A simple glazier vs Saudi ownership question for you in all honesty
- Status