Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rozay said:
But these are not simply 'tyrants' we are talking about. We are talking about a sovereign state. A recognised one, even if some would try their hardest to not acknowledge their validity.

I am not excusing the atrocities you speak of. I am refuting the insinuation that any subsequent act that is NOT an atrocity is merely an attempt to 'cover up' the atrocities in the first place. Again, this is a sovereign nation state. Not some celebrity or corporation. The complexity and amount of facets to their existence is being severely belittled in favour of a narrow and myopic definition of 'evil doers'. When you start to look at them as an actual nation, the way we look at nations in the West, their deeds do not necessarily have to define them in the same way. This is a country, a 'PR exercise' is massively simplistic, this isn't Mason Greenwood.

The issue I have is the throwing around of the term 'sportswashing' any time an ME state tries to do anything OTHER than behead someone or ban homosexuality is to not acknowledge their credibility as a nation. My argument is that many in the west are too lazy to see them as anything other than 'those barbarians who do x and y', and it would likely be more convenient when the mental imagery of such places were as depicted in movies like Delta Force, with little other than desert land and men in traditional attire in Land Cruisers wielding AK-47s. The fact that the imagery has changed to what would be considered more 'normal' things - leisure, tourism, world-class medicine, architecture and of course - sport is not simply because someone wants to trick everyone into not labelling them as homphobic. It is because all countries would like world class facilities, tourism revenue etc. Not just western ones. Only in Qatar they don't allow you to be gay or drunk while doing it. Which is a valid point to disagree with, my issue is that everything else doesn't start from that position. They are simply developing their countries in the same way Israel has done so post WW2, South Africa has been doing post-apartheid and many others. They are doing it for the betterment of their people. Not for western approval.

The US, for example, is probably the only western state that allows people to simply purchase guns and use them. Unlike the UK and most (all) other western states, their state also kills people. They have a death penalty which others don't. I could list so many more things that the rest of us don't approve of but their actions will never be perceived from the starting position of those things. Perhaps because we have agreed to recognise them as real people and a real country. So as much as I abhor their gun laws, I still go there at least once a year, and I don't view every new attraction in Las Vegas as no more than an attempt to distract from the fact that they have a death penalty. It's just one of their things I disagree with, and there are things that I like. All I am saying is that as a nation, Qatar has the right to be viewed the same. 'Sportswashing', in that respect, I find highly condescending because it would be never be used of a Western State in this day and age regardless of probably anything else they chose to do. So this is not me validating any Qatari practise, it is me taking an objection to the inference that any subsequent act is nothing more than PR. A nation can do both good and bad things. Most of them do.
Click to expand...
Many a good point made in this post.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...

All we want is not to be riddled with debt and have an owner that, at the very least, pretends to care about the wider club and infrastructure. We don't need (or want) to be owned by a country, we just want someone with an inkling of interest in Manchester United outside of its commercial firepower.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...


Talksports whole radio model is saying stupid things to create division and controversy that people will argue about and engage in.

They purposely say one thing then totally hypocritical about the next thing.

They just occasionally get it right in some of the angles they take.
 
We're going to have objectionable owners no matter what, it seems. Between Glazer-like yank leeches and sportswashers, I think I'd prefer the option that gives us an option of winning the league ever again.
 
Red_Heisenberg said:
I'd personally rather us invest in refurbishing/upgrading OT than building a potentially soulless new stadium. Maybe I'm in the minority, but there's so much history in that ground, I'd be against letting it go. Just give it some TLC.
Click to expand...
Not to derail the thread too much, but I think the amount of work it would take to make Old Trafford modern enough would be more work than building anew.

However, I agree it has to be done right. I don't want another toilet bowl ala Spurs, Arsenal, Man City, Wembley etc. I get that this is probably the most efficient way to make a stadia at the moment, but I'd want to take inspiration from the current OT and make something more unique and iconic. It should be a new stadium on the same land, turn the current ground into a smaller one for training / youth / women's games etc.

The whole area around the stadium should be like Manchester United world. An unbelievable experience for fans to spend hours there before/after the game as well.

It needs this kind of investment opportunity to be achieved.

Just my two cents on it.
 
SirReginald said:
So.. welcome to the sports washing club then. Most of you seem pleased. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Sportswashing, greenwashing blah, blah, blah if you want to watch top tier football we are long past the point of no return... if you want a vegan, PETA, Greeenpeace, Amnesty international, friendly club good luck finding one above pub level, my soul has long since been sold many times over.
 
IncyWincySpider said:
I won't be watching football anymore if this happens. A shame because I'm so excited for what Ten Hag is doing for us, but I've no interest in supporting a bigger version of Manchester City.
Click to expand...
I just don't get this at all. It's nothing like City. We're already huge with massive revenue streams. New owners won't and can't just artificially dump loads of money in, and won't need to.

The only issues are around sportswashing and that's it.
 
cyberman said:
Click to expand...


I can imagine a scenario where the two Glazers retain a minority stake in the club going forward (Joel and Avram), while everyone else sells up. I don't think they'd get away with the Class A/Class B split which gives them control. They'll just be small investors.
 
RedStarUnited said:
The new owners will be clearing it as part of the transaction to acquire the club, I would like to assume that transaction is outside of FFP controls. For example, the new owners can request the glazers clear any debt before the transaction closes.
Click to expand...

They can but not sure why they would from their point of view, doubt the Glazers will care if that debt is cleared particularly if it means their sale proceeds will be reduced.

So long as they are not personally liable for the debt then I'd imagine there is no requirement to have it cleared pre or post sale. I could of course be wrong.
 
Just not US investors please. Keep those hedge fund vultures away from the club.

I'd also imagine Ratcliffe is out of the picture now, no way he competes with Middle Eastern bidders. And good riddance tbh.
 
Skills said:
I can imagine a scenario where the two Glazers retain a minority stake in the club going forward (Joel and Avram), while everyone else sells up. I don't think they'd get away with the Class A/Class B split which gives them control. They'll just be small investors.
Click to expand...
Investors would actually need to put money into the club. The tight Glazer bastards wouldn't put in a cent. Sure they can try and keep a minority stake but don't see any bidders being comfortable with that arrangement. They're going to want full control.
 
Rozay said:
But these are not simply 'tyrants' we are talking about. We are talking about a sovereign state. A recognised one, even if some would try their hardest to not acknowledge their validity.

I am not excusing the atrocities you speak of. I am refuting the insinuation that any subsequent act that is NOT an atrocity is merely an attempt to 'cover up' the atrocities in the first place. Again, this is a sovereign nation state. Not some celebrity or corporation. The complexity and amount of facets to their existence is being severely belittled in favour of a narrow and myopic definition of 'evil doers'. When you start to look at them as an actual nation, the way we look at nations in the West, their deeds do not necessarily have to define them in the same way. This is a country, a 'PR exercise' is massively simplistic, this isn't Mason Greenwood.

The issue I have is the throwing around of the term 'sportswashing' any time an ME state tries to do anything OTHER than behead someone or ban homosexuality is to not acknowledge their credibility as a nation. My argument is that many in the west are too lazy to see them as anything other than 'those barbarians who do x and y', and it would likely be more convenient when the mental imagery of such places were as depicted in movies like Delta Force, with little other than desert land and men in traditional attire in Land Cruisers wielding AK-47s. The fact that the imagery has changed to what would be considered more 'normal' things - leisure, tourism, world-class medicine, architecture and of course - sport is not simply because someone wants to trick everyone into not labelling them as homphobic. It is because all countries would like world class facilities, tourism revenue etc. Not just western ones. Only in Qatar they don't allow you to be gay or drunk while doing it. Which is a valid point to disagree with, my issue is that everything else doesn't start from that position. They are simply developing their countries in the same way Israel has done so post WW2, South Africa has been doing post-apartheid and many others. They are doing it for the betterment of their people. Not for western approval.

The US, for example, is probably the only western state that allows people to simply purchase guns and use them. Unlike the UK and most (all) other western states, their state also kills people. They have a death penalty which others don't. I could list so many more things that the rest of us don't approve of but their actions will never be perceived from the starting position of those things. Perhaps because we have agreed to recognise them as real people and a real country. So as much as I abhor their gun laws, I still go there at least once a year, and I don't view every new attraction in Las Vegas as no more than an attempt to distract from the fact that they have a death penalty. It's just one of their things I disagree with, and there are things that I like. All I am saying is that as a nation, Qatar has the right to be viewed the same. 'Sportswashing', in that respect, I find highly condescending because it would be never be used of a Western State in this day and age regardless of probably anything else they chose to do. So this is not me validating any Qatari practise, it is me taking an objection to the inference that any subsequent act is nothing more than PR. A nation can do both good and bad things. Most of them do.
Click to expand...
Nothing to add to this. Well put.
 
Skills said:
I can imagine a scenario where the two Glazers retain a minority stake in the club going forward (Joel and Avram), while everyone else sells up. I don't think they'd get away with the Class A/Class B split which gives them control. They'll just be small investors.
Click to expand...

I can just imagine a scenario where we are part owned by a Jewish family and an conservative Arab state.... I cannot see any issues with this what so ever
 
Fridge chutney said:
I'm personally devastated. My association with the club will end if a state in any way purchases United. However it is a tough task to ask of fans to turn their back on the club they love and have supported for years/decades
Click to expand...
No one is asking you to turn your back, that's a personal choice you will make that wasn't influenced by anyone else and won't effect anyone else.
 
devilish said:
The Qataris will probably put David Beckham as their front man and if they buy the club then they'll ask SAF to put a public good word with the fans. That will put the locals fans anxiety to bed.
Click to expand...
Not sure they are too happy with him after he took their money at the world cup and they didn't really do anything for it.
 
Skills said:
I can imagine a scenario where the two Glazers retain a minority stake in the club going forward (Joel and Avram), while everyone else sells up. I don't think they'd get away with the Class A/Class B split which gives them control. They'll just be small investors.
Click to expand...

Vivid imagination! :lol:
 
Fridge chutney said:
I'm personally devastated. My association with the club will end if a state in any way purchases United. However it is a tough task to ask of fans to turn their back on the club they love and have supported for years/decades
Click to expand...

Glazers gone AND no more non league transfer tweets? :eek:
 
Kaos said:
Investors would actually need to put money into the club. The tight Glazer bastards wouldn't put in a cent. Sure they can try and keep a minority stake but don't see any bidders being comfortable with that arrangement. They're going to want full control.
Click to expand...

The new owners would still have control - and fairly comfortably on an 80-20 sort of margin in that scenario.
 
Skills said:
The new owners would still have control - and fairly comfortably on an 80-20 sort of margin in that scenario.
Click to expand...
The new owners would also like a clean slate, and must be aware of how universally despised the Glazers are. They're not going to want to have them around lingering like a foul smell, no matter how small their stake. If they want the fans on board, they're not going to risk keeping the parasites around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.