Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A response of someone who has no point to make. I’m convinced you truly believe you have a moral high ground to stand on, which is absolutely hilarious to me.
You do realise that the heads of state in the US and the UK are not involved in bidding for the club? If they were I'm sure a lot of people would be unhappy about that too. The comparison you are making is completely nonsensical.
 
If PSG is what 10 years of Qatari money buys a club then I wouldn't be opening the Champagne anytime soon...
 
Last edited:
Obviously it would, but its identity would be gradually eroded through foreign ownership, especially that of a nation state seeking to use United to expand the brand of the state, and all the baggage that comes with it. This is why imo, it has to be owned by a private non-state entity with some degree of connection to the club, either by nationality or being a fan.

I'm assuming you meant "it wouldn't".

Again, United has been under foreign ownership for nearly two decades. The stature of this club and the status it affords is due to its global appeal - something that United is more than happy to court for financial gain - weird that having an English owner would be core to its "identity", especially when considering it's not owned by English folks.

the whole "selling its identity" just comes off like a dogwhistle - though I don't believe that's your intent.
 
Neither do you.
You might not understand it but it’s there. Anyone that chooses not to support United under Qatari ownership is free to do what THEY believe is right. The idea that it makes them morally superior is complete garbage, and my posts show exactly why it’s complete garbage.
 
You do realise that the heads of state in the US and the UK are not involved in bidding for the club? If they were I'm sure a lot of people would be unhappy about that too. The comparison you are making is completely nonsensical.
Your attempt at understanding my point is nonsensical
 
I'm assuming you meant "it wouldn't".

Again, United has been under foreign ownership for nearly two decades. The stature of this club and the status it affords is due to its global appeal - something that United is more than happy to court for financial gain - weird that having an English owner would be core to its "identity", especially when considering it's not owned by English folks.

the whole "selling its identity" just comes off like a dogwhistle - though I don't believe that's your intent.

Yes, but the global appeal but has little to do with the Glazers, it has to do with the proliferation of how football is consumed by fans during the information age. 20 years ago, it was harder to watch all the matches in developing markets. Technology has changed that. Its not in any way remotely connected to the fact that the Glazers are Americans, nor should it influence the core identity and ethos of the club going forward.
 
I haven't really followed this. If it's the Qataris would that mean they'd run the club in a similar fashion to how they run PSG? Like an extremely short-term galactico collection with no regard for playing philosophy, squad balance, or managerial authority?

If so, that would be on par with the two inbred cnuts buying out their siblings and riding on ETH coat-tails whilst plunging the club further into debt and neglecting the stadium/facilities.

All their massive rule breaking aside, City have at least put some thought into how to build the club up. PSG seem to be all about today, or yesterday even.
 
It should be the owners facilitating Ten Hag in signing the players he wants, not the owners going all out to sign the players they want. ‍:wenger:
Your first mistake was believing Tom Mcdermott :lol: what has this wannabe Romano ever got right or exclusive?
 
You only have to look at psg to not want their owners anywhere near us, they are another set of owners that treat their club like a brand first and foremost just like the glazers and they allow the players way too much power at the club over managers, we don't need to be turned back into a circus act of a club again, we will be back to a recruitment strategy of players like the past it ronaldo and pogba's of this world for their brand appeal
 
I haven't really followed this. If it's the Qataris would that mean they'd run the club in a similar fashion to how they run PSG? Like an extremely short-term galactico collection with no regard for playing philosophy, squad balance, or managerial authority?
Quite possible.
 
I haven't really followed this. If it's the Qataris would that mean they'd run the club in a similar fashion to how they run PSG? Like an extremely short-term galactico collection with no regard for playing philosophy, squad balance, or managerial authority?

If so, that would be on par with the two inbred cnuts buying out their siblings and riding on ETH coat-tails whilst plunging the club further into debt and neglecting the stadium/facilities.

All their massive rule breaking aside, City have at least put some thought into how to build the club up. PSG seem to be all about today, or yesterday even.
Nobody knows, impossible to answer that really.

No doubt they'd probably buy a shiny toy if they wanted it, but most of us like shiny toys too.
 
You only have to look at psg to not want their owners anywhere near us, they are another set of owners that treat their club like a brand first and foremost just like the glazers and they allow the players way too much power at the club over managers, we don't need to be turned back into a circus act of a club again, we will be back to a recruitment strategy of players like the past it ronaldo and pogba's of this world for their brand appeal

And an american hedge fund will treat the club like a local community asset?

There is no good option here. Just the least bad
 
Does anyone actually shove their post violently in the mail box?
 
I haven't really followed this. If it's the Qataris would that mean they'd run the club in a similar fashion to how they run PSG? Like an extremely short-term galactico collection with no regard for playing philosophy, squad balance, or managerial authority?

If so, that would be on par with the two inbred cnuts buying out their siblings and riding on ETH coat-tails whilst plunging the club further into debt and neglecting the stadium/facilities.

All their massive rule breaking aside, City have at least put some thought into how to build the club up. PSG seem to be all about today, or yesterday even.
To be fair they sign players for CL success and have a shallow pool of players who would want to leave for the French League.
 
All their massive rule breaking aside, City have at least put some thought into how to build the club up. PSG seem to be all about today, or yesterday even.

Yup they still seem to have on idea what they're doing even with a DOF.

City is part skill and part Pep. Remains to be seen if they'll be this disciplined after he leaves.
 
I haven't really followed this. If it's the Qataris would that mean they'd run the club in a similar fashion to how they run PSG? Like an extremely short-term galactico collection with no regard for playing philosophy, squad balance, or managerial authority?

If so, that would be on par with the two inbred cnuts buying out their siblings and riding on ETH coat-tails whilst plunging the club further into debt and neglecting the stadium/facilities.

All their massive rule breaking aside, City have at least put some thought into how to build the club up. PSG seem to be all about today, or yesterday even.

Why is it short term? Haven't they built a very good academy? Their first 11 is questionable I agree but apart from that I don't see much difference to City. Hugely successful domestically but failing in the CL.
I just hope they'd trust ETH's project
 
Musk would be unbearable for me. There's much I can take from an owner but that guy is a pure nightmare. Don't even want him with a minority investment here. The guy manages to damage us even from that position.
 
Yup they still seem to have on idea what they're doing even with a DOF.

City is part skill and part Pep. Remains to be seen if they'll be this disciplined after he leaves.
City’s signings before Pep were hit and miss. Much like Liverpool before klopp. The manager really does make a huge difference. Thankfully we now have a top one.
 
I haven't really followed this. If it's the Qataris would that mean they'd run the club in a similar fashion to how they run PSG? Like an extremely short-term galactico collection with no regard for playing philosophy, squad balance, or managerial authority?

If so, that would be on par with the two inbred cnuts buying out their siblings and riding on ETH coat-tails whilst plunging the club further into debt and neglecting the stadium/facilities.

All their massive rule breaking aside, City have at least put some thought into how to build the club up. PSG seem to be all about today, or yesterday even.
All speculation as no one knows the answer. Could be anything from „We (the owners) want to show who we are, we will appoint a new manager, buy whichever player we want, we make the decisions, big name players are more important than the manager” to “we trust ETH, we will support him and invest in further improving the current team as well as stadium and training facilities”.
 
City’s signings before Pep were hit and miss. Much like Liverpool before klopp. The manager really does make a huge difference. Thankfully we now have a top one.

And if the new owners have any sense they'll back him. It's a worry to be fair.
 
Your first mistake was believing Tom Mcdermott :lol: what has this wannabe Romano ever got right or exclusive?

I don’t know who that is.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the Qatari’s would look to bring in a marquee big name signing like Mbappe though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.