If we assume that the Glazers will eventually sell, then bumping up the cost even further is going to inevitably price out even the wealthiest private bidders. In other words, and assuming this report is true, those opposed to state ownership should probably be lamenting the failure of Ratcliffe’s bid rather than celebrating the failure of Qatar’s.
It is a fair point. But then also by that logic, an oil state sponsored bid will always be able to outmuscle other bidders, in the present just as much as in any future.
And indeed the sense of relief, even if shortsighted or naive, that I get from reading news about the sale being postponed is refering to this very situation, that a Qatar takeover already now sounded most likely and in fact imminent. And the Ratcliffe proposal was not convincing or hope inspiring in itself. A rather bleak situation.
So what other can I say than that even if a state takeover were ultimately inevitable, any day or year it does not happen is good to me. And then one can still hope it is not in fact inevitable and that there might be other options, bidders, models, developments in the future.
One such development could be, the fanbase as stakeholders can use the time to somehow sort ourselves out and add a voice that complicates the process of the Glazers simply selling to the highest bidder in a sphere where clubs are merely financial investment and/or sportswashing objects. The superleague affair showed that a public discourse connected to fans' voices does have some political power (in that particular case, surprisingly much power, actually). That power might be rapidly diminishing towards the upper level of ownership, transnational business and the global 'product' of football, yet that product is still always incarnated as clubs, leagues, federations that have a locality with societal and political framework, if not something precarious as a history and identity. Within that framework, we have to maintain that influence can be exerted.
Obviously I cannot pretend it does not feel like a massive longshot or a pipedream, especially seeing the mixture of understandable fatalism, annoying cynicism, and unfettered, blinkered greed swirling in this thread.
People point out the horse has left the barn (whether that happened with Abramovich, City, the Saudi Newcastle takeover or indeed some developments reaching further back), but I would prefer us to cling to the cord around our horse's neck while it drags us across the ground, maybe slowing it down or affecting its steering. Even if that is grinding. Too many fans want to let loose because where they see the horse running, they crave some glorious transfer market warchest to 'buy us a team to compete with City'.
Football is still a game. We already have a team (and not a cheap one at that). You can always compete.
Do you really think a person of great morals has upwards of 10 billion lying around?
Whoever buys the club will likely have morality(maybe even severe) question marks. It's the way the world is.
We're not going to get bought by a saint.
Nobody is a saint. But with that line of argument you can equate, and bulldoze over, any little or not so little differences. To stay in the religious vocabulary, I do not like it if that line is used to absolve us from the task to try to draw boundaries and take up standpoints as best as we can, in the face of ambivalence and grey areas.
That's really not true though. Most oil rich clubs have achieved feck all, it's just City that have been a success in part due to Pep as they struggled before him.
We've had a few years of pain recently, most clubs go through decades of relegation and fighting in the lower divisions. Facing financial woes and whether they'll actually exist as a footballing club.
Calling us a dead club is just a coping mechanism so you can put your morals in a box and accept the big money. Weird how the box was opened for Mason and yet when it comes to a state backed bid from a country that represses based on gender, wealth and sexual orientation the box is closed.
Weird huh?
Thank you, it is good to read such a post as this is important to remember.
Perhaps being based in Germany where ownership is still tied to club structures and hence a sports club ethos is still somewhat more relevant to the perception of the sport, the perspective of my being a fan of Man United and by extension PL football is tinged with that socialization. But to me it is integral that Man United also always has carried a strong element of such a club ethos even alongside its prominent position in the commercialization of the sport, and it is something I feel we should keep insisting on, despite..
No idea, my lens from abroad might have been neglecting or underestimating the corroding effect of the Glazers ownership on many local fans' sense of connection and identity, though I would argue we should try to not completely confound our recent relative lack of success with complete alienation and fatalistic lamentation of total mismanagement. It should still be 'win together, lose together', basically. But that would be stuff for another tl/dr post.
Ok I got it off my chest. Sorry that it is on the longwinded and sanctimonious side. Back to the newbies I go.