BluesJr
Owns the moral low ground
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 9,253
Keegan is clearly getting info from someone directly involved. Everyone else has no clue.Is it a minority stake or a full sale? Seems no one knows what the fecks going on.
Keegan is clearly getting info from someone directly involved. Everyone else has no clue.Is it a minority stake or a full sale? Seems no one knows what the fecks going on.
No we are not. We are talking about a football club, who has been taken over by a state entity.We are talking about a sovereign state.
Bollox. They are doing what? Managing Man City? Don't try to change the subject. And as for the betterment of their people... Right.They are doing it for the betterment of their people. Not for western approval.
No other Nation States except the ones to which you refer, take over football clubs in other countries as PR exercises. Or is that for the good of some people, too?... in that respect, I find (the use of the term sportswashing) highly condescending because it would be never be used of a Western State .... this 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.
It's also clear he's been fed the information wrapped in blatant PR. There's inconsistencies in his reporting too. Last night he said only a full blown sale was on the table, now he's saying a minority stake is a possibility.Keegan is clearly getting info from someone directly involved. Everyone else has no clue.
Has Keegan reported that it could be minority stake? Think that's coming from other journos.It's also clear he's been fed the information wrapped in blatant PR. There's inconsistencies in his reporting too. Last night he said only a full blown sale was on the table, now he's saying a minority stake is a possibility.
100 pounds for the Glazers
3 billion for the clubs investment.
Correct.Has Keegan reported that it could be minority stake? Think that's coming from other journos.
I used to live near there 20 or so years ago, went to the odd game now and then, first time I went I was like WTF, I knew it had a slope but that was ridiculous!Ha, I used to weirdly like Underhill - maybe as it was easier to get to. My favourite memory was hearing Edgar David's literally insult the life out of a linesman for giving a throw in the other way, surreal moment
Mike Keegan is clearly the guy on this. Everyone else fumbling the ball.
No we are not. We are talking about a football club, who has been taken over by a state entity.
Bollox. They are doing what? Managing Man City? Don't try to change the subject. And as for the betterment of their people... Right.
The US is weird about gun laws. Nothing to do with 'Sportswashing', ....
No other Nation States except the ones to which you refer, take over football clubs in other countries as PR exercises. Or is that for the good of some people, too?
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.
Is it a minority stake or a full sale? Seems no one knows what the fecks going on.
Is it a minority stake or a full sale? Seems no one knows what the fecks going on.
Matt Slater from The Athletic was a podcast a while back and said one of the takeaways from the recent Chelsea deal, is that investors tend to think it was very overvalued.We’ve gone from a massive 8b takeover to feck all in the space of 24 hours. Shite
Matt Slater from The Athletic was a podcast a while back and said one of the takeaways from the recent Chelsea deal, is that investors tend to think it was very overvalued.
United is still going to go for insane amount of money but I do wonder if the Glazers are asking for too much the club.
It’s all speculation. Like I said yesterday, Jamie Jackson talking about the value of Qatars opening bit - pure guesswork. We won’t know until something legitimately happens. Until then it’s just noise.One guy says its a subsidiary and the other guy says its not affiliated
journalists..who to believe
Wouldn’t the most logical thing for the Qatar’s to do to avoid owning 2 clubs be adding another billionaire to the ticket, someone like Jim Ratcliffe.
As many of you no doubt know, since MUFC is a public company, the club cannot be sold at all, since any sale would occur while the NYSE exists
The problem with becks is he doesn’t have the money to solve the owning majority shares in 2 clubs problem, whereas Jim would, also these billionaires are involved in companies with other billionaires, they know how to put there egos aside.Two big egos of people who run their respective large organisations? I doubt it would work though. They have Becks there to be the face already.
The problem with becks is he doesn’t have the money to solve the owning majority shares in 2 clubs problem, whereas Jim would, also these billionaires are involved in companies with other billionaires, they know how to put there egos aside.
What do you mean? Of course it can be sold.As many of you no doubt know, since MUFC is a public company, the club cannot be sold at all, since any sale would occur while the NYSE exists
I really hope United won't become another oil state club like City or Newcastle.
If it really happen, I'm wondering what all the fans here, who constantly emphasis (rightfully) the success and titles of City are worth nothing and don't count, will come up with that in United's case it's different.
I really hope United won't become another oil state club like City or Newcastle.
If it really happen, I'm wondering what all the fans here, who constantly emphasis (rightfully) the success and titles of City are worth nothing and don't count, will come up with that in United's case it's different.
The PL is getting very hard to compete without huge investment and with Chelsea spending more than ever, Newcastle about to pop off and a possible new owner at Liverpool it’s only getting worse.
Our future success, if we indeed are successful, won't be as a result of being pumped with oil money. Remove our debt and Glazer dividends and we've more than enough to compete with any club, within the boundaries of FFP. That's something the club is entitled to enjoy as a result of many decades of hard work and success, enabling us to grow commercially. We'll not become super rich and successful overnight, we're already super rich and have a history of success.Undoubtedly. However, is the right move to become another soulless oil state club?
Will the huge part of your fan base, which criticized, belittled and ridiculed the achievements of the sugar daddy and oil state clubs for decades, just shut their mouth and celebrate future success and trophies under the banner of Qatar or another state?
Or will a significant of your fanbase become disillusioned and turn their back on United, if this happens.
For me as lifelong Bayern Munich supporter, if an foreign state takes over the club, I just would be done with football. Bad enough these plastics clubs with unlimited funds are around, but once the club I love and support would become another toy of some Middle Eastern autocracy I would a call it a day.
No way I could support a club which became exactly that what I have detested for years.
I really hope United won't become another oil state club like City or Newcastle.
If it really happen, I'm wondering what all the fans here, who constantly emphasis (rightfully) the success and titles of City are worth nothing and don't count, will come up with that in United's case it's different.
I don’t think either of these are black and white. But if we did exactly or even along the lines of.....then other than the football on the pitch anything else would be hollow.Undoubtedly. However, is the right move to become another soulless oil state club?
Will the huge part of your fan base, which criticized, belittled and ridiculed the achievements of the sugar daddy and oil state clubs for decades, just shut their mouth and celebrate future success and trophies under the banner of Qatar or another state?
Or will a significant of your fanbase become disillusioned and turn their back on United, if this happens.
For me as lifelong Bayern Munich supporter, if an foreign state takes over the club, I just would be done with football. Bad enough these plastics clubs with unlimited funds are around, but once the club I love and support would become another toy of some Middle Eastern autocracy I would a call it a day.
No way I could support a club which became exactly that what I have detested for years.
Quite unlikely to have bids coming from Singapore and China.From The Times journos, Ziegler and Lawton.
"A fund linked to the Qatari royal family has expressed an interest in buying Manchester United, with a bid now under consideration before next week’s deadline for interested parties."
"The Qataris have already joined other groups from around the world in contacting Raine to gain access to the documents from which they can do their due diligence before deciding whether to join the race to purchase a club with a claimed global following of more than a billion people. It is believed that direct conversations with the Old Trafford hierarchy have taken place."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-united-interest-from-qatari-fund-confirmed-lz8xh2plf
They also report that there could be bids from Singapore and China in addition to American and Middle Eastern bids.
Without repeating what other posters have already written, let me just put it like that: when a gay woman in Qatar is able to run for office, I'll be the first to welcome a Qatari bid to own Manchester United.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.
Without repeating what other posters have already written, let me just put it like that: when a gay woman in Qatar is able to run for office, I'll be the first to welcome a Qatari bid to own Manchester United.
When a gay footballer feels like this country is forward enough to come out and not get abused back into the closet, I'll feel I can judge another countries morals and ethics
We don't need to cheat and fake sponsorships, we currently can't even spend our own money due to the parasites upstairs. The fans have no say in the next ownersUndoubtedly. However, is the right move to become another soulless oil state club?
Will the huge part of your fan base, which criticized, belittled and ridiculed the achievements of the sugar daddy and oil state clubs for decades, just shut their mouth and celebrate future success and trophies under the banner of Qatar or another state?
Or will a significant of your fanbase become disillusioned and turn their back on United, if this happens.
For me as lifelong Bayern Munich supporter, if an foreign state takes over the club, I just would be done with football. Bad enough these plastics clubs with unlimited funds are around, but once the club I love and support would become another toy of some Middle Eastern autocracy I would a call it a day.
No way I could support a club which became exactly that what I have detested for years.