I think my posts are self explanatory. I don't want nation states condemned by Amnesty owning Manchester United. That includes any non-democracies and therefore the entire Middle East (bar Israel, albeit flawed).
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I think my posts are self explanatory. I don't want nation states condemned by Amnesty owning Manchester United. That includes any non-democracies and therefore the entire Middle East (bar Israel, albeit flawed).
Why does Isreal get a pass?
I don't think anyone is really happy with the state of the ownership of football clubs. It's something we either accept or boycott and I think people's choices on that should be respected. There is some positive to be had in all of it imo. The WC was a good example, in that it not only highlighted problems and provoked discussion, but also exposed Qatari society to the global community in a way that could never have otherwise happened. Most of our and their prejudices are borne from ignorance, therefore familiarity serves to make the world a better and more harmonious place.
I just want to share I'm learning so much in this thread 
According to The Economist Group's Democracy Index 2020 study, Israel is the only democratic country (qualified as a "flawed democracy", ranked #28 worldwide) in the Middle East, while Tunisia (#53 worldwide) is the only democracy (also "flawed democracy") in North Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_the_Middle_East_and_North_Africa
This isn't the place to unpick the 74 year old Arab/Israel conflict, which is essentially an ongoing religious territorial war that explains the context of Israel's undoubted human rights violations and breaches of international law.
Edit: Deleting my comment as am just adding fuel to this debate.
Amnesty have condemned Isreal though, so weird place to draw the line.
That's what I thought.
We need some news on this, quick. This thread is going to keep getting regurgitated.
Drawing the line anywhere with regards to different countries is a mistake and belies the fundamental point that nation states, of any kind, owning football clubs, is ludicrous. I would hope that many United fans would be extremely displeased at the prospect of Israel buying their club, even if it meant Mbappe et al being signed (some of course would welcome it with open arms and would be rejoicing in the streets, but such is life).
Rightly so. But it's still a democracy - essentially a very flawed wartime one that exists in a completely alien and hostile regional environment. It doesn't get a pass though. But compare that to Syria where Assad chemical bombs his own civilians, Qatar which is an autocracy essentially run on the semi-slave labour of migrant workers, Saudi Arabia which is a medieval religious monarchy, Egypt a military dictatorship, Gaza run by an Islamist terror organisation etc. It's a very messed up part of the world.
I wouldn't want Israel owning the club either. That's not the same as the Glazers though, who merely support Israel (I'm assuming.) Obviously I'm against the Glazers for very different reasons unconnected to that, but they aren't an evil on the scale of Saudi Arabia. Qatar I would put somewhere inbetween but still morally unacceptable.
May I point you to the one-month old Athletic article. That's all we've had regarding 'news'. United are not a distressed asset and therefore we can't reasonably expect similar timelines to the frantic and very public Chelsea deal. This will be long, slow and quiet.
People saying about the price they are asking. I just wonder how much is the land worth that the club bought up. Is it classed as prime building land? If a new stadium is built on it, then a smaller one where OT is now, the rest could be seriously developed regarding food outlets, hotels, shopping etc. It might be seen as short term spending for long term gain. Trying to get this thread back on track.
It's really not worth getting into the weeds on this - the thread will end up in an irrecoverable tailspin.
Are we sold yet?
The vast majority of fruit and vegetables in democracies such as the EU and USA is produced using semi-slave migrant workers, ditto clothing and other consumer goods.
This is what you a buying. Potential. Anyone interested in United must be gambling that the value of clubs like United has not peaked yet. There are obvious and monetizable development opportunities immediately around OT and perhaps future windfalls from streaming rights and a Super League (which I would definitely expect to rear it's ugly head again at some point). A price of £6-7bn obviously cannot be supported by any traditional method of valuation of the club and its assets, but if investors think United might be worth £10-12bn in 5-10 years, it might be a gamble they consider worth taking.
No. But a picture of Joel (I think) Glazer in supposedly in Qatar has derailed the thread into which middle eastern country is worse than others.
Sounds like a riot.
Someone needs to make a top trumps game of that.
I'm in
It was Avram. Joel is bald, Avram looks like a pony-tailed rat. That's the easy way to remember them.
I call them both bastards and get mixed up
Oh, I know it won't be as frantic. However, the interest in the sale of Manchester United, especially from their fans, is a big deal and a constant topic.
To be fair, if you ever met them both together in real life, you'd be a lot less concerned about their names, than you would about which one to punch first.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, unlike in the case of transfers, where you have a seething mass of agents, players and journalists, all desperately seeking to promote their own self-interest through leaked stories and disinformation, in the case of a potential takeover like this, discretion is usually the name of the game. We probably won't know much, until it has almost already happened, which could easily be April/May or even later. Fans will understandably be desperate for information, but parties engaged in serious discussions, will be bound by silence.
Oh I absolutely do not want United to be bought by a nation state of any kind. Just kinda shocked that "it's a (very flawed) democracy" is the line, completely ignoring the current and past actions of Israel. But yeah absolutely not worth getting into that discussion in here.
What about a principality?
Hi all, be the first to hold my hand up and say I know very little on the overall lay of the Middle East. Can anyone dumb this down a little (of course not to diminish anything around human rights violations etc)
From what I have been reading from some of the really clued up folks on here is that there is all sorts of investment funds or wealth funds which is basically a front for the respective country. Am I right in assuming that when it's suggested Qatari or Dubai or Saudi Arabian ownership, then it is that country which could have ownership of Man Utd? Or are there potentially different rich families within each of the countries who could be potential new owners,be that directly or via a 'fund'?
Apologies in advance if this has already been covered
From what I have been reading from some of the really clued up folks on here is that there is all sorts of investment funds or wealth funds which is basically a front for the respective country. Am I right in assuming that when it's suggested Qatari or Dubai or Saudi Arabian ownership, then it is that country which could have ownership of Man Utd? Or are there potentially different rich families within each of the countries who could be potential new owners,be that directly or via a 'fund'?
Apologies in advance if this has already been covered
It would be more principled.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very true. It's just the constant bickering (me included) in this thread about things that may or may not happen, is annoying. I'd rather debate about something concrete connected to United.
Comments from the person I wrote that to
You cannot be taken seriously it you’ve read his comments and then find something wrong with how I responded after realising there is no debating with him.
The way I see it is that these royal families are big because they are usually polygamous. So what they will do is that Qatar or Saudi Arabia as a gvt/state doesn't have to necessarily buy United or any club through its sovereign fund but can use a company owned by a close relative (e.g brother of the sovereign) and then use state owned companies, in the form of sponsorship deals, to fund the club.
Given what has happened at City the possibilities for United are limitless, we have a £750m pound deal with Adidas for the kit so what stops a state linked company from say Dubai from paying a billion just to name the stadium Old Trafford Emirate? It will be like real life cheat code.
Judging from the reactions we are getting here I think if any state wanted to purchase United this will be the route they would choose. Use one of the companies owned by a regime insider to bid, give it a concessionary loan for acquisition and then after that use state owned companies as sponsorship vehicles.
If I am the Emir of Qatar, I am using my brother or sister's company as a cover and there are certainly enough journalists and influencers to pay off to use their platform to stress the distinction between the state and this company.
Nah how the feck can you have less issue with a literal apartheid state. Calling Israel “flawed” is like calling genocide “a minor disagreement”.
Ahh well he's clearly got an agenda.
Yep Israel bought us
I would say that Israeli 'apartheid' is as much a rational security response as it is a desire to run an ethnicly cleansed state - though that is certainly an element of their politcs too. It's hard to unpick where one starts and the other ends. They are certainly morally compromised but they are also fighting enemies who don't accept they should exist, so it's unsuprising they end up as extremist. They wouldn't exist otherwise.
Anyway that's enough Arabs v Israel. Israel isn't planning to buy Manchester United so it's a bit irrelevant to the discussion of which arab oil state has the worst human rights record.
Last edited:
You’re absolutely insane if you believe what you’ve written here. Apartheid as a “rational security response” while operating and routinely dropping bombs on the worlds largest open air prison.
The Israeli government is purely about genocide.
It's completely rational to not mingle with people who want to kill you. However they also want a jewish majority state so the apartheid label has some force. But liberal Israeli opinion is rendered impotent by the facts of war. They tried a peace process and it did not work.
The open air prison drops bombs on them too. The moral issue is proportionality of response, something the Israelis should practice and don't.
The open air prison has a border with Egypt who also don't let them in. Because they are governed by an Islamic fundamentalist terror organisation.
I'm not an apologist for Israeli excesses. There seem to be a lot of apologists for Arab excesses.
Think he’s written enough where you could have just stopped there.
No, you’re right you’re not an apologist. You’re a proponent for genocide, you’ve said more than enough to make that absolutely clear to everyone.
- Status