Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Sheik's bid state backed ? It has not been proven. So why are we all up in arm's over a hypothetical situation.

Plus as a lot of people have pointed out, United don't need a lot of funds. We generate enough revenue for our football expenses. The big issue with Sir Jim/Glazers was or will be building/upgrading the club's infrastructure. The Qatari's will be able to do that without putting a burden on the Club.

As for the human right abuses which Qatar have been accused off, I'm onboard there what they did was wrong. But Qatar has been associated with PSG (Neymar/Messi/Mbappe) for a while now and they are still called out, so the sport washing has not worked. Why would United's association change anything ? i.e. they can still be called out for all the egregious things they do.

Unless Qatar take over and start implementing anti-LGBTQ laws, do some dodgy financing deals etc.. we should be fine right. That's when we can revolt.

I'm not from the UK so I'm not as close to United as some of you are, but where was this outrage against Fergie when we got sold to the Glazers over a dispute on a racehorse ? That sale is what kick started the process to where we are. United was always going to be sold to some questionable folks (Sir Jim or the Sheik) not a lot we can do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan
Mockney said:
It's very strange to me, considering a HUGE part of the United brand is built on that romance. The narrative of Man United IS the narrative of it's self sufficiency. It's winning European Cups with different teams built out of it's academy, or from young players it bought and developed. It's recovering from setbacks & tragedy with it's own players, it's own graft, it's own mythology....United are not remotely the most successful team in football. We never have been. We're not even the most successful English club in Europe. The reason we're so beloved (and so supported) is in huge part thanks to this romantic image of the club... The irony that a lot of the supporters who support us because of this image, are more than happy to tear it down for the (vague) promise of unlimited success is so utterly depressing to me. City's treble was entirely without romance, without narrative, and yet people still looked at it and went "yeah, I wanna sell our soul for that! Gimmie gimme! And what's more I'm gonna celebrate it, and laugh in the face of anyone put off by it, because I get what I want!"

I will remain a United fan, but I will simply care less, in much the same way I care less now than I did as an obsessed 14 year old who used to cut the heads of top players Panini stickers and stick them onto duplicates of our players. Football will remain a part of my life, just a slightly less joyful part. A part I take less pleasure and certainly less pride in, as that will simply ebb away a bit into other things.... It's not a massive deal, but it's sad nonetheless. And the kind of people who consider that something to crow over, I will simply never understand.
Click to expand...

Can we pin this at the top of the site for all to read?

I've tried to say the same thing myself. As I said earlier in this thread, this response you outline above is just about as disappointing to me as the apathy we faced, from far too many, 18 years ago.

City will be sanctioned, in some way, in the next year or two. Whether or not it actually impacts their ability to dominate the league remains to be seen. But even if they carry on as they are, I don't want our great club to be dragged down to their level to compete. I'd MUCH rather we were the best legitimate club, than the best at cheating and sportswashing. The damage to our reputation would last generations.
 
Nickelodeon said:
Great post. And agree wholeheartedly.

It’s heartening to see some people come out with anti-sportswashing sentiment in a thread full of Qatar backers.
Click to expand...
To be fair he hasn’t come out as anti sport-washing, it’s anti financial cheat code if anything.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
Come on, don't be obtuse. If you are going to tell strangers that you are morally superior based on one single isolated stance, then expect to be questioned on other situations. Nothing to do with highlighting human rights issues as the reason to be against Qatar - which is perfectly valid.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing people should be questioned on holding, in your own words, 'perfectly valid' opinions? That makes no sense.

What would invalidate their 'perfectly valid' issues with Qatari attitudes to women and immigrant workers?

Owning something made in a non unionised factory?

Cheering a Nike sponsored athlete?

Utter nonsense.
 
pocco said:
So let's just agree that it is very badly wrong to say he can't afford the club and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Let's not agree that.

Here is the logic. The club is worth only what a willing buyer is prepared to pay. The Qataris can in theory beat any offer SJR makes because (and this is beyond dispute) they are richer than him - not just a bit richer but several orders of magnitude richer. And furthermore they are not constrained by business considerations such as value for money and share holder disapproval.

So at a certain point the Qataris state can (and I think will) choose to offer an amount that SJR cannot match within his political and financial constraints. In other words he can't afford it. It's that simple and that's how Qatar will probably win the auction, aided and abetted by Raine Group encouragement and Glazer greed.
 
fatmanWazza said:
Is Sheik's bid state backed ? It has not been proven. So why are we all up in arm's over a hypothetical situation.

Plus as a lot of people have pointed out, United don't need a lot of funds. We generate enough revenue for our football expenses. The big issue with Sir Jim/Glazers was or will be building/upgrading the club's infrastructure. The Qatari's will be able to do that without putting a burden on the Club.

As for the human right abuses which Qatar have been accused off, I'm onboard there what they did was wrong. But Qatar has been associated with PSG (Neymar/Messi/Mbappe) for a while now and they are still called out, so the sport washing has not worked. Why would United's association change anything ? i.e. they can still be called out for all the egregious things they do.

Unless Qatar take over and start implementing anti-LGBTQ laws, do some dodgy financing deals etc.. we should be fine right. That's when we can revolt.

I'm not from the UK so I'm not as close to United as some of you are, but where was this outrage against Fergie when we got sold to the Glazers over a dispute on a racehorse ? That sale is what kick started the process to where we are. United was always going to be sold to some questionable folks (Sir Jim or the Sheik) not a lot we can do.
Click to expand...
You'd need to have your head real deep in the sand if you think a guy worth 1bln USD can afford to buy United.
 
That the Qataris are spending so much time on twitter shows that they don't understand this club at all. Manchester United conducts all its business by fax machine. Always has and always will.
 
Mockney said:
It's very strange to me, considering a HUGE part of the United brand is built on that romance. The narrative of Man United IS the narrative of it's self sufficiency. It's winning European Cups with different teams built out of it's academy, or from young players it bought and developed. It's recovering from setbacks & tragedy with it's own players, it's own graft, it's own mythology....United are not remotely the most successful team in football. We never have been. We're not even the most successful English club in Europe. The reason we're so beloved (and so supported) is in huge part thanks to this romantic image of the club... The irony that a lot of the supporters who support us because of this image, are more than happy to tear it down for the (vague) promise of unlimited success is so utterly depressing to me. City's treble was entirely without romance, without narrative, and yet people still looked at it and went "yeah, I wanna sell our soul for that! Gimmie gimme! And what's more I'm gonna celebrate it, and laugh in the face of anyone put off by it, because I get what I want!"

I will remain a United fan, but I will simply care less, in much the same way I care less now than I did as an obsessed 14 year old who used to cut the heads of top players Panini stickers and stick them onto duplicates of our players. Football will remain a part of my life, just a slightly less joyful part. A part I take less pleasure and certainly less pride in, as that will simply ebb away a bit into other things.... It's not a massive deal, but it's sad nonetheless. And the kind of people who consider that something to crow over, I will simply never understand.
Click to expand...

Great post. This is essentially how I feel as well.
I just can't be arsed to post much on here lately.

People keep whinging about that this is turning into a saga like our transfer sagas. Yes, the fans are. The only reason we have so many transfer sagas is because our fans are willing to click and engage with it, in a much larger degree than other clubs.

And yes, in my opinion, ideally the club would be fan-owned (without the fans making any major decisions), or self-sustained by a trust of some sort.

But that's not gonna happen unless someone wants to give away a lot of their money for a quickly forgotten legacy.

Out of the realistic bidders I prefer Ineos. I don't care about 100% since the Glazers haven't had 100%, and the fact that many other clubs operate with minority owners.
All that matters to me is getting a new majority owner that can make all significant decisions without any input from the Glazers, so even if they remain for a few years I'd be willing to wait them out if it's the best way to get them out.
 
downxandxout said:
I think you may have missed the point of my post. I was commenting on how it isn't just as easy as 'supporting another club' if you dislike who owns us, regardless of who it is.
Click to expand...

That isn't what you wrote, I accept your backtraking. My point is that if you speculate who is going to own a club, and ignore what the bidder is proposing, the emotional effects and choices are on you..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mockney said:
It's very strange to me, considering a HUGE part of the United brand is built on that romance. The narrative of Man United IS the narrative of it's self sufficiency. It's winning European Cups with different teams built out of it's academy, or from young players it bought and developed. It's recovering from setbacks & tragedy with it's own players, it's own graft, it's own mythology....United are not remotely the most successful team in football. We never have been. We're not even the most successful English club in Europe. The reason we're so beloved (and so supported) is in huge part thanks to this romantic image of the club... The irony that a lot of the supporters who support us because of this image, are more than happy to tear it down for the (vague) promise of unlimited success is so utterly depressing to me. City's treble was entirely without romance, without narrative, and yet people still looked at it and went "yeah, I wanna sell our soul for that! Gimmie gimme! And what's more I'm gonna celebrate it, and laugh in the face of anyone put off by it, because I get what I want!"

I will remain a United fan, but I will simply care less, in much the same way I care less now than I did as an obsessed 14 year old who used to cut the heads of top players Panini stickers and stick them onto duplicates of our players. Football will remain a part of my life, just a slightly less joyful part. A part I take less pleasure and certainly less pride in, as that will simply ebb away a bit into other things.... It's not a massive deal, but it's sad nonetheless. And the kind of people who consider that something to crow over, I will simply never understand.
Click to expand...
I think what we should all be appreciative of is that as Utd fans we all came to the club in our own ways and have continued to support it for our own reasons, what the club is, what it means will be different to each of us .

For me a 7 year old kid who had little or no exposure to football, I turned on the 1985 FA cup final whilst my Dad slept off his dinnertime drinking, I do not remember much of the match, but I remember choosing red because of Strachan and Robson, I remember little else other than from that day on I was a utd fan. I knew nothing about Munich or any of the club's history until many years later, not like we had the internet :) so at heart I honestly do not feel the same moral connection, I still just have a young boys wonderment that I cannot shake.... who owns the club and why matters nothing to me, as long as we are playing the football that takes me away from the mundanity of everyday and transports me back to the feeling of that cup final for 90 minutes

I would like for everyone here to recognise that we are all individuals with our own valid feelings and opinions, if you want SJ, SJR, just Glazers out, if you will continue to support the club or not... live your life be happy and let others feel the way they feel, but then who am I kidding, this place is full of haters, wums and people who cannot accept that anyone can have an opinion which differs from their own, good luck and peace out!
 
sparx99 said:
I just don’t know why and when it matters. Like why is supporting Utd tied to your own individual morality?
Click to expand...

The answer is in the question. It's an individual thing. People outraged at other people's principles is totally mental. And it reached fever pitch during the World Cup and is again.

To not want to look at the world cup or support a state backed team is not about 'moral superiority'. Just personal principles. The anger it causes is surreal.
 
Eplel said:
This is the page where the truth will be revealed.

s-l500.jpg
Click to expand...
Good reference
glasgow 21 said:
Enough already , so if, and its still only an, if Qatar buys its not yours or my fault. Its on the Glazers and the state of Global Business. Whilst we all crave the 1950 Bill in the tools shop life, its gone . It's on the internet and cheap as chips from china on amazon. The idyllic world you all crave and want, a team full of academy players built on graft who work down the mines is in the past it is gone . The new world doesn't have time for us or ideals. It is those with the biggest pockets win. You do have a choice thou but that is down to individual. We lost it when players got more money than sense and to sustain it the owners had to more wealthy each time till we arrive where we are. ~The ~Glazers though have achieved another goal and shitshow. They have turned fans on each other.
Click to expand...
What does this mean?
 
This whole sale is embarrassing. Glazers sending a "nice" messagge to their future business partners.
Who would deal with them after this travesty?
 
moses said:
The answer is in the question. It's an individual thing. People outraged at other people's principles is totally mental. And it reached fever pitch during the World Cup and is again.

To not want to look at the world cup or support a state backed teams is not about 'moral superiority'. Just personal principles. The anger it causes is surreal.
Click to expand...
True. It all boils down to personal preferences.
 
Massive Spanner said:
This isn't a Man City or a Newcastle we're talking about. This is the 2nd biggest club in the world and the club that generates the most revenue in the world. A club that already drawfs most in spending and wages despite our current owners. The only problem we have is terrible mismanagement. An owner who knows how to manage the club properly is far more important than a sugar daddy, and Qatar have shown in the past (via PSG) that they are certainly no Abu Dhabi when it comes to managing a football club, so it's naive to assume they'll bring anything like the success the UAE have brought City. I'm not saying SJR is either, but this is far from as black and white as Owners with unlimited money = unparalleled success
Click to expand...

But I agree with you. I also don't think that money with mismanagement brings success. Our only problem is not mismanagement, it is owners who have taken the clubs focus from being successful first, to a cashcow. because ambitious owners would allow the mismanagement to continue.

We are currently privately owned by the glazers. And they want to sell. This is where we are. Who would you like to buy us? I repeat, i would rather whoever buys us, just lets us operate, without an influx of cash but also without personal debt.

Eventually the clubs revenue would go down without on the pitch success.
 
cyberman said:
To be fair he hasn’t come out as anti sport-washing, it’s anti financial cheat code if anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to be honest the whole Qatari-ness of it all is way down the list of things I'm opposed to. Even though I agree the "But you have a phone!!!??" aspect is an incredibly dumb and disingenuous argument.

My issue has always been that no club should ever have inexhaustible funds. And the idea that money has always been a factor and certain clubs have always been rich is like billionaires blaming millionaires for the state of inequality. It's a ridiculous distraction. Man Utd have always been richer than most, but we also had to loan Wout Weghorst this winter because we've spent so much. We aren't rich enough to not be in a huge amount of debt. Barcelona aren't rich enough to have not basically bankrupted themselves. But City ARE rich enough to never have to worry about those things. They have NO consequences for their bad decisions. And making the only solution to this inequality that everyone needs to go and get in bed with their own despotic feudal oil rich country is an insane one way street to oblivion IMO.

And again, even then, it's one thing to accept this. Another to celebrate it.
 
Mockney said:
It's very strange to me, considering a HUGE part of the United brand is built on that romance. The narrative of Man United IS the narrative of it's self sufficiency. It's winning European Cups with different teams built out of it's academy, or from young players it bought and developed. It's recovering from setbacks & tragedy with it's own players, it's own graft, it's own mythology....United are not remotely the most successful team in football. We never have been. We're not even the most successful English club in Europe. The reason we're so beloved (and so supported) is in huge part thanks to this romantic image of the club... The irony that a lot of the supporters who support us because of this image, are more than happy to tear it down for the (vague) promise of unlimited success is so utterly depressing to me. City's treble was entirely without romance, without narrative, and yet people still looked at it and went "yeah, I wanna sell our soul for that! Gimmie gimme! And what's more I'm gonna celebrate it, and laugh in the face of anyone put off by it, because I get what I want!"
Click to expand...

Yeah I've seen a lot of that in here over these last few months. And it points to the type of fan those guys are, they only want success no matter how it is achieved so they can lord it over and rub it in the faces of friends or people online.

Pretty sad really.

Mockney said:
I will remain a United fan, but I will simply care less, in much the same way I care less now than I did as an obsessed 14 year old who used to cut the heads of top players Panini stickers and stick them onto duplicates of our players. Football will remain a part of my life, just a slightly less joyful part. A part I take less pleasure and certainly less pride in, as that will simply ebb away a bit into other things.... It's not a massive deal, but it's sad nonetheless. And the kind of people who consider that something to crow over, I will simply never understand.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I thought I was the only lunatic who did that.
 
Romance is subjective.

Man Utd rotting away under the Glazers - 6 inept American billionaire kids who were literally given the club for nothing as though it were a royal castle and have subsequently run it into the ground, may allow the right set of circumstances for some people to project ‘romance’ onto the club, but for others it might not.

The club signs players for obscene amounts of money, pays obscene wages, employs guys like Ronaldo, gives out contracts to friends rather than to those who’ve shown excellence in their field and has been left by the Glazers a hollow shell which focuses more on embarrassing branding exercises than it does on winning trophies.

You’d have to be a particularly huge fan of brutal commercial capitalism and nepotism to find any of that romantic. But fair enough.

Many of us would like to see Utd successful again for elderly relatives who’ve supported Utd for 60 years and been left heartbroken by the ruin of the last 10 years. Wanting them to see us lift meaningful trophies again before they pass away might well hold ‘romance’ for some of us.

Kids who’ve heard (endlessly) about the 92 team and the treble era, they will feel the exact same romance we did if Utd won a treble under Jassim’s ownership, the romance will come from the fans, from the experiences.

It’s subjective, and just as we shouldn’t Lord it over pro Ratcliffe fans if Jassim is announced, we also shouldn’t start cultivating a culture of superiority over those who do find romance in Utd being freed of the Glazers and having its shackles removed as a club.
 
I'm against Oil states buying clubs but modern football at the top level is dead anyway, so why not join the madness.
 
Mockney said:
I mean, Liverpool did it? Madrid have done it? Why Manchester United of all clubs would NEED state ownership to compete is beyond me. We just need to be run properly. It might take a little bit more time than people are willing to wait, but I guarantee it'd mean more. Just as all the titles that have meant more have been the ones we really had to fight for, rather than the ones we won at a canter.

But even so, my post was less about the sad resignation that this is simply the state of football these days and we can do nothing about it (I'm aware of that) as it was how alien and depressing the reaction of some fans in this thread is to it. It's one thing to be resigned, and another to be an active giddy cheerleader for this kind of stuff...and yet more still to take pleasure in goading other fans of your club with it, because they committed the heinous crime of making you feel a little bit bad about it.

People treating this like a transfer saga doing nothing to dissuade from the assumption this is all just an extension of the FIFA/transfer muppet mentality.
Click to expand...

Again, im not saying we need state ownership. I am saying we need owners that let us be. Given that our two options are either qatar or sir jim, i would be ok with either if their finances allow us to operate without debt.

And i agree with you that the state of football is where it is, but i understand that this is where it is.
 
moses said:
The answer is in the question. It's an individual thing. People outraged at other people's principles is totally mental. And it reached fever pitch during the World Cup and is again.

To not want to look at the world cup or support a state backed team is not about 'moral superiority'. Just personal principles. The anger it causes is surreal.
Click to expand...
I think where the problem lies is painting a picture of Uniteds past that doesn’t exist.
I could give many examples of Sir Alex chasing the big names, the big transfers only to get turned down and then going for plan B or even C.
There was no doing it the right way, there was no United road to success policy. We were weeks away from having a Vieira and Keane midfield for feck sake. He wanted Rivaldo to be a part of our 99 team! Del Piero would have been a part of our 07/08/09 winning sides as well
 
glazed said:
Let's not agree that.

Here is the logic. The club is worth only what a willing buyer is prepared to pay. The Qataris can in theory beat any offer SJR makes because (and this is beyond dispute) they are richer than him - not just a bit richer but several orders of magnitude richer. And furthermore they are not constrained by business considerations such as value for money and share holder disapproval.

So at a certain point the Qataris state can (and I think will) choose to offer an amount that SJR cannot match within his political and financial constraints. In other words he can't afford it. It's that simple and that's how Qatar will probably win the auction, aided and abetted by Raine Group encouragement and Glazer greed.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a limit to what Qatar will spend on the club, they said from day one they won't be held to ransom. And SJR could probably match that if he wanted to. So he can afford the club and has actually valued to club higher than Jassim throughout the process (I'm not covering this ground again, though).

Besides, if this isn't state backed, as some of you claim, then there is a limit to what Jassim can afford.
 
moses said:
So you are arguing people should be questioned on holding, in your own words, 'perfectly valid' opinions? That makes no sense.

What would invalidate their 'perfectly valid' issues with Qatari attitudes to women and immigrant workers?

Owning something made in a non unionised factory?

Cheering a Nike sponsored athlete?

Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

Read what I'm saying. It's aimed at those in this thread that claim moral superiority just so that they can devaluate the opinion of those that doesn't share the same opinion (ie want Qatari ownership).
 
It's been a strange thing throughout the saga that those in favour of Qatar don't acknowledge or skip over the role that emotional investment has to play. A poster in this thread asked an excellent question; why are myself and others willing to buy electronics manufactured by Foxconn, but are appalled by the prospect of Qatar buying United and will walk if it comes to pass?

The answer is that I am emotionally invested in Manchester United. I identify ( at least for the next week or so) as a United fan. I am not emotionally invested in my phone, I do not follow ITK accounts for Samsung , I am not excited about who they might sign as their next C.F.O. I do not get chills thinking about their last minute dramatic acquisitions in 1999.

Your football club and your breakfast cereal manufacturer are profoundly different things and it's strange to me that people making this argument think you can compare United to other businesses you engage with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Solius
Massive Spanner said:
He says as him and half the Caf beg for Qatar to rescue the club from the evil Englishman.
Click to expand...

I don’t actually support one bid or the other. Mostly just want the Glazers gone because they are rubbish at running the football club.

In an ideal world we could all be member owned like a lot of Spanish clubs or 50+1 like German ones. Unfortunately for us we support a club that’s too expensive for the fans to buy.

Given that all I want is the club to be able to focus on football again. No servicing somebody else’s mortgage, no dividends. I don’t even want a spending spree.

I wasn’t even trying to be confrontational. I’m genuinely curious as to why people feel the need to not support or wind down their support if Qatar wins over Ineos.

We all have to live with cognitive dissonance about where our clothes, food, electronics get made. Why is it different for watching football?
 
BarstoolProphet said:
Read what I'm saying. It's aimed at those in this thread that claim moral superiority just so that they can devaluate the opinion of those that doesn't share the same opinion (ie want Qatari ownership).
Click to expand...

Who is actually claiming moral superiority? It's a lazy attack on anyone with any principles.
 
MTF said:
I'm a finance guy, squeezing money from an asset is a form of love for me.
Click to expand...
:lol:
Mockney said:
It's very strange to me, considering a HUGE part of the United brand is built on that romance. The narrative of Man United IS the narrative of it's self sufficiency. It's winning European Cups with different teams built out of it's academy, or from young players it bought and developed. It's recovering from setbacks & tragedy with it's own players, it's own graft, it's own mythology....United are not remotely the most successful team in football. We never have been. We're not even the most successful English club in Europe. The reason we're so beloved (and so supported) is in huge part thanks to this romantic image of the club... The irony that a lot of the supporters who support us because of this image, are more than happy to tear it down for the (vague) promise of unlimited success is so utterly depressing to me. City's treble was entirely without romance, without narrative, and yet people still looked at it and went "yeah, I wanna sell our soul for that! Gimmie gimme! And what's more I'm gonna celebrate it, and laugh in the face of anyone put off by it, because I get what I want!"

I will remain a United fan, but I will simply care less, in much the same way I care less now than I did as an obsessed 14 year old who used to cut the heads of top players Panini stickers and stick them onto duplicates of our players. Football will remain a part of my life, just a slightly less joyful part. A part I take less pleasure and certainly less pride in, as that will simply ebb away a bit into other things.... It's not a massive deal, but it's sad nonetheless. And the kind of people who consider that something to crow over, I will simply never understand.
Click to expand...
The one positive thing to come out of this thread is that I've noticed that a lot of posters I really appreciate (like you two) share more or less the same views, which is comforting for some reason.
 
Mockney said:
I mean, Liverpool did it? Madrid have done it? Why Manchester United of all clubs would NEED state ownership to compete is beyond me. We just need to be run properly. It might take a little bit more time than people are willing to wait, but I guarantee it'd mean more. Just as all the titles that have meant more have been the ones we really had to fight for, rather than the ones we won at a canter.

But even so, my post was less about the sad resignation that this is simply the state of football these days and we can do nothing about it (I'm aware of that) as it was how alien and depressing the reaction of some fans in this thread is to it. It's one thing to be resigned, and another to be an active giddy cheerleader for this kind of stuff...and yet more still to take pleasure in goading other fans of your club with it, because they committed the heinous crime of making you feel a little bit bad about it.

People treating this like a transfer saga doing nothing to dissuade from the assumption this is all just an extension of the FIFA/transfer muppet mentality.
Click to expand...

Madrid have been regularly bailed out by the King of Spain.
 
cyberman said:
I think where the problem lies is painting a picture of Uniteds past that doesn’t exist.
I could give many examples of Sir Alex chasing the big names, the big transfers only to get turned down and then going for plan B or even C.
There was no doing it the right way, there was no United road to success policy. We were weeks away from having a Vieira and Keane midfield for feck sake. He wanted Rivaldo to be a part of our 99 team! Del Piero would have been a part of our 07/08/09 winning sides as well
Click to expand...


What? United have nothing to do with how a lot of people feel about human rights. Some things are bigger than sport to some folk.

Others are willing to jump through hoops to make it all OK.
 
moses said:
Who is actually claiming moral superiority? It's a lazy attack on anyone with any principles.
Click to expand...

Have you not been following this thread? It has been claimed several times (ie 'those that want Qatari ownership lacks morals' mentioned in different versions).
 
MTF said:
We don't have to be successful, not at any cost.
Click to expand...

I don’t want owners that give us easy success. I also don’t want owners who think of us as an ATM. I would like owners that let us operate, which would put us in a position to be successful if we do things right.

In that sense, I am not pro state ownership, and I am not against it. I just want the leaches who own us to feck off.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Many of us would like to see Utd successful again for elderly relatives who’ve supported Utd for 60 years and been left heartbroken by the ruin of the last 10 years. Wanting them to see us lift meaningful trophies again before they pass away might well hold ‘romance’ for some of us.
Click to expand...

I think this is genuinely the most disingenuously manipulative thing I've seen anyone post. It's utterly mental. United fans of 60 years have seen us win everything, and be relegated in their time. Why would they be significantly more heartbroken by us finishing outside of the top 4 for a couple of season & only winning 4 trophies in the last 8 years!? :lol:

It’s subjective, and just as we shouldn’t Lord it over pro Ratcliffe fans if Jassim is announced, we also shouldn’t start cultivating a culture of superiority over those who do find romance in Utd being freed of the Glazers and having its shackles removed as a club.
Click to expand...

No one - absolutely no one - is a Jim Ratcliffe fan FFS. This is precisely how you can identify the weird disconnect between the two camps here. There are people who might prefer him, but people are not treating the potential success of his bid in remotely the same crassly obsessive way.
 
e
moses said:
What? United have nothing to do with how a lot of people feel about human rights. Some things are bigger than sport to some folk.

Others are willing to jump through hoops to make it all OK.
Click to expand...


Like the Greenwood affair. I hope he never puts on a United's shirt again regardless.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
Have you not been following this thread? It has been claimed several times (ie 'those that want Qatari ownership lacks morals' mentioned in different versions).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they do or where that has been said. You can't follow this thread and maintain sanity.

I do think people can put morals, aside, not sure that's lacking morals.

Mostly I've seen accusations of moral superiority based on nothing except expressing disappointment at state ownership, especially a state with such a dubious human rights record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.