Club Sale | It’s done!

[Woziak]

And Ratcliffe owns Nice which theoretically can meet United in the same competition.

Course we are a socialist club. Northern England and from Manchester. Manchester is a notoriously socialist city and our club represents it more than any other.

Even today our golden boy Marcus Rashford etc. It’s socialist values and left leaning through and through. Always has been hopefully always will be.

His values and morales are but his new McClaren definitely isn’t ! Unless like Corbyn he lets every homeless person in Moss Side take it for a spin when they need a ride to Asda and he leaves £500 in the car seat !
My point the club was once considered a catholic working class champion for the people but now it is many things to many people, whether as Roy Keane used to say ; “The Prawn Sandwich brigade”, yes those northern socialist fans from Alderley Edge and Cheshire, or as most likely to be under new management become a haven for Muslim players.

Does every player and member of of the coaching staff have to be a social justice warrior to be a part of Man united lore, I don’t think so and politics should not come into it, if you know anything about ETH you will know that his family and indeed himself are about as right wing as they come but that doesn’t stop the lefties loving him does it ?

 

[stevoc]

Well depends who you ask. If you're a conservative Muslim man or an expat then the Gulf is fantastic for you.

Are people seriously trying to argue that the Arab world is a better place for women or migrant workers than the West?

Amazingly yes, this thread needs locking again. There is a group of people who seem determined to discuss anything but the potential takeover of United.

 

[AneRu]

I really hope it's not going to happen. The Glazers are a case of better the devil you know, I'd take those leeches all day over becoming yet another sportswashing project to legitimatise a barbaric regime. We dont crave success, we are not City or Newcastle, we know what it's like to win the right way. We don't need this.

Can't be good for PSG either. Are the Qataris going to bother with them when they have a bigger club in a better league to play with?

Jesus, these guys don't need United to legitimize their hold on power they already own more valuable and strategic assets in the UK than a mere football club. They never really needed anyone's approval, their money bought them that already. They just spent billions on hosting a World Cup and they hosted it on their terms, if they cared one hoot what you thought about them they would have allowed alcohol and gay rights for that period and they didn't.

For what its worth I am generally on the liberal side and completely indifferent to one's sexual orientation or gender but you surely must know that its just in Western Europe and the States where homosexuality is supported and even legal. In Africa, where I am, homophobia is worn like a badge of honor and its a political death nail for a candidate to campaign on a policy that supports gay rights. Its not ok but societies take time to evolve and it wont happen at everyone's desired speed.

To me its hypocritical to pick and choose where Qataris and other undesirables (as confirmed here) can participate in your society. Where was the disgust when they were buying up assets that guarantee you and yours jobs and tax revenues for the NHS? If you can accept them owning 12% of Barclays, London real estate or an airport then Manchester United isn't off limits.

The Glazer ownership of this club has been disastrous and if the Qatsris are interested and can get us back on track to be what we once were then I will welcome them with open arms. What I know is that my support or your condemnation won't matter one way or the other, its what they are willing to pay that will determine what will happen.

 

[cyberman]

I genuinely think we could have won a title with ten hag under the glazers. Think we will definitely will now.

If we did then City would just ramp up and we’d be in Liverpools spot of one title in a cycle and somehow hoping to find another Klopp just to challenge City again.
I’m sure, with the money in the game and talent in the league, a team can jump up and challenge City but I’m also sure we’d be looking at City winning 7/8 of every 10 titles

 

[Wumminator]

Jesus, these guys don't need United to legitimize their hold on power they already own more valuable and strategic assets in the UK than a mere football club. They never really needed anyone's approval, their money bought them that already. They just spent billions on hosting a World Cup and they hosted it on their terms, if they cared one hoot what you thought about them they would have allowed alcohol and gay rights for that period and they didn't.

For what its worth I am generally on the liberal side and completely indifferent to one's sexual orientation or gender but you surely must know that its just in Western Europe and the States where homosexuality is supported and even legal. In Africa, where I am, homophobia is worn like a badge of honor and its a political death nail for a candidate to campaign on a policy that supports gay rights. Its not ok but societies take time to evolve and it wont happen at everyone's desired speed.

To me its hypocritical to pick and choose where Qataris and other undesirables (as confirmed here) can participate in your society. Where was the disgust when they were buying up assets that guarantee you and yours jobs and tax revenues for the NHS? If you can accept them owning 12% of Barclays, London real estate or an airport then Manchester United isn't off limits.

The Glazer ownership of this club has been disastrous and if the Qatsris are interested and can get us back on track to be what we once were then I will welcome them with open arms. What I know is that my support or your condemnation won't matter one way or the other, its what they are willing to pay that will determine what will happen.

I don’t support Barclays or London real estate.

 

[Penna]

If a country has laws which restrict the free movement and life opportunities of 50% of the adult population based on nothing more than the fact they're women, those laws are objectively unjust. Basic human rights should be undeniable, irrespective of any religious or cultural norms.

What this other country or that other country did 50 or 100 years ago is irrelevant. We have to look at what's happening in the here and now. Countries have a right to self-determination, but if that impinges on those basic human rights then the leaders or rulers of that country must expect to be scrutinised.

As fans of the club, we have no say in who owns it because we're not super-rich billionaires. However, we'll no doubt all have an opinion. I'd rather stick with the Glazers, quite honestly.

 

[Tarrou]

They just spent billions on hosting a World Cup and they hosted it on their terms, if they cared one hoot what you thought about them they would have allowed alcohol and gay rights for that period and they didn't.

the point is they don't want to change, they want to stay the same

if they were willing to change they'd just do it and wouldn't need to sportswash

 

[SecondFig]

His values and morales are but his new McClaren definitely isn’t ! Unless like Corbyn he lets every homeless person in Moss Side take it for a spin when they need a ride to Asda and he leaves £500 in the car seat !
My point the club was once considered a catholic working class champion for the people but now it is many things to many people, whether as Roy Keane used to say ; “The Prawn Sandwich brigade”, yes those northern socialist fans from Alderley Edge and Cheshire, or as most likely to be under new management become a haven for Muslim players.

Does every player and member of of the coaching staff have to be a social justice warrior to be a part of Man united lore, I don’t think so and politics should not come into it, if you know anything about ETH you will know that his family and indeed himself are about as right wing as they come but that doesn’t stop the lefties loving him does it ?

First of all, the "politics should not come into it" is just utterly impossible when you're talking about being bought and owned by a nation state who wants to use the club to improve their PR.

if you know anything about ETH you will know that his family and indeed himself are about as right wing as they come but that doesn’t stop the lefties loving him does it

Want to back that up with anything? I've looked and can't find anything at all about his political views. I know his family were/are wealthy, and his father was big in real estate - but I can't find anything online about Erik's politics

 

[SecondFig]

If a country has laws which restrict the free movement and life opportunities of 50% of the adult population based on nothing more than the fact they're women, those laws are objectively unjust. Basic human rights should be undeniable, irrespective of any religious or cultural norms.

What this other country or that other country did 50 or 100 years ago is irrelevant. We have to look at what's happening in the here and now. Countries have a right to self-determination, but if that impinges on those basic human rights then the leaders or rulers of that country must expect to be scrutinised.

As fans of the club, we have no say in who owns it because we're not super-rich billionaires. However, we'll no doubt all have an opinion. I'd rather stick with the Glazers, quite honestly.

Same - I can support the club and loathe the owners with the Glazers in charge. If we're bought by the likes of Qatar I don't think I could still support the club

 

[Shakesy]

Whataboutism is the defense of someone who has no defense.

‘US did this’, ‘UK did that’, yes but those who criticise the Gulf states are hardly jingoistic flag waivers are they?

No, they're not. They're deluded and brainwashed like the rest of us.

There is no moral high ground in a world where morals are subjective and usually determined by the status quo. What are morals, really??

Qatar is just as guilty and disgusting as any other country/culture/religion.

But hey, we define ourselves by our convictions, never giving a thought whether the other side has a viable pov. I'm not pro-homophobia or pro anything. I'm just astounded that most people simply can't stand anyone else that doesn't agree with their world view.

 

[cyberman]

First of all, the "politics should not come into it" is just utterly impossible when you're talking about being bought and owned by a nation state who wants to use the club to improve their PR.



Want to back that up with anything? I've looked and can't find anything at all about his political views. I know his family were/are wealthy, and his father was big in real estate - but I can't find anything online about Erik's politics

I always thought PR was overblown in these deals. It looks like simple indulgence and influence to me.
What has constantly winning done to Abu Dhabi reputation? I bet a lot of fans have to even Google owners of Man City be sure of who owns that club

 

[AneRu]

I don’t support Barclays or London real estate.

But you derive indirect or direct benefits from their involvement/ownership of both. Some kept their jobs precisely because of ME investments but they become horrible murderers when it comes to football. This penchant for picking and choosing where to virtue signal is exactly why these people succeed.

European governments buy their gas and oil then sell them weapons. Now this is a hill to die on if you all really cared but you will never choose to freeze in winter because the gas you buy is enabling a fecking murderer and an abuser to boot. This is where they get their power from and we all know who protects them from ever paying for it and who votes for them.

 

[redcucumber]

No, they're not. They're deluded and brainwashed like the rest of us.

There is no moral high ground in a world where morals are subjective and usually determined by the status quo. What are morals, really??

Qatar is just as guilty and disgusting as any other country/culture/religion.

But hey, we define ourselves by our convictions, never giving a thought whether the other side has a viable pov. I'm not pro-homophobia or pro anything. I'm just astounded that most people simply can't stand anyone else that doesn't agree with their world view.

Yes, and no one is advocating for the UK/American governments to buy United. Don't you see that that is the inherent problem? People don't want this club to be owned by a nation state.

 

[Rozay]

I'm not sure you understand the concept of 'fan owned'.

I’m well aware what it means. It is this romantic notion of Flex and Goldbridge being on the United board or something and being consulted on decisions. However, a large part of the initial romantic appeal of Sir Jim Ratcliffe was also that we would be owned by a fan. I read many a post to that effect.

By the looks of things, we may not be owned by Ratcliffe, but instead a wealthy fan who is from Qatar.

 

[Member 125398]

Is anybody else uncomfortable about the Q not being followed by a U?

 

[Kinsella]

He's absolutely embarrassing, I've been reading this thread for the past 10 hours and I can't believe some of the shit this guy has posted since then...if his account wasn't from 2010 I'd totally believe that he's being paid to write those things.

I thought I was reading satire after that particular comment.

 

[Shakesy]

Yes, and no one is advocating for the UK/American governments to buy United. Don't you see that that is the inherent problem? People don't want this club to be owned by a nation state.

It's this word that is loaded. I agree with you, yet you added "state". What is a "state"?

 

[Widow]

Is anybody else uncomfortable about the Q not being follwed by a U?

No, as it's not pronounced QU

 

[Water Melon]

Qataris will invest in the infrastructure and local community, pay the debt and let the club use what we earn. I am all for it. We will be self sustainable without having to pay off the interest and the leaking roof of the OT will be fixed.

 

[AneRu]

the point is they don't want to change, they want to stay the same

if they were willing to change they'd just do it and wouldn't need to sportswash

I don't think they are doing it to sportswash, you guys place an unrealistically high value on how important your views on them are. Smell the coffee, they are already influential in Western society and they have been allowed a way in where they own things more valuable than Manchester United. They don't need to hide behind a club to gain acceptance.

Last night the Emir was in Germany, do you think if he wanted a chat with the Chancellor he'd need to introduce himself as the PSG owner or the guy looking for a loophole to buy United? I bet he wouldn't even need an appointment. They do these things because they want to and they need to prove to their peers that they can.

Remember MBS and the Kashoggi murder? It didnt even cost him a thing and he wont ever pay for it. He didnt buy Newcastle to get defenders online, he simply doesn't care because he is that evil but he is also that powerful.

 

[7even]

Housemaids emprisoned for the term of their contract and not allowed out of the house unless travelling with their host family - there were 2 on our compound where they weren't even allowed to write home and we secretly mailed letters for them occasionally so at least their kids/family knew theye were alive. Many sexually abused as well. Terrible treatment of workers from places like India, Pakistan. Worker deaths convered up or miss reported. Abominable and systematic mistreatment of women, generally treated like property. Zero worker protection, even for western expats e.g. a collegue of my wife's was a councillor and she was deported for refusing to tell her boss which girl she was helping was raped by a family member so he could tell her family who had royal connections. Debt treated as a crime with virtually no legal recourse especially for expats. The law in general is more about who you know than what you did/didn't do. I know a member of the Caf who was imprisoned for someone else's debt until they paid it off on the basis that he was working on the same project. No legal connection or financial guarantees involved - just someone with royal connections didn't want to lose money and didn't care who paid for it.

Are you sure its Qatar you talking about because you have just described parts of Sweden.

 

[Drizzle]

I don't think they are doing it to sportswash, you guys place an unrealistically high value on how important your views on them are. Smell the coffee, they are already influential in Western society and they have been allowed a way in where they own things more valuable than Manchester United. They don't need to hide behind a club to gain acceptance.

Last night the Emir was in Germany, do you think if he wanted a chat with the Chancellor he'd need to introduce himself as the PSG owner or the guy looking for a loophole to buy United? I bet he wouldn't even need an appointment. They do these things because they want to and they need to prove to their peers that they can.

Remember MBS and the Kashoggi murder? It didnt even cost him a thing and he wont ever pay for it. He didnt buy Newcastle to get defenders online, he simply doesn't care because he is that evil but he is also that powerful.

Sportswashing is more subtle and multi-faceted than 'hey everyone, here's some shiny football isn't Qatar great'.

It's about influence, indirect marketing, soft power and the wielding of resources outside their region.

Who was talking about Qatar in the west 10 years ago? Now they're everywhere.

 

[Rozay]

Whataboutism is the defense of someone who has no defense.

‘US did this’, ‘UK did that’, yes but those who criticise the Gulf states are hardly jingoistic flag waivers are they?

It’s hardly a strange concept at all. The dismissal of everything as whatsboutism is the defence of those who have no defence. It is quite simple - it points out that there are flaws everywhere and people pick and choose when they want to be offended. Instead of a person to refute that, they just call ‘whataboutism’ - which basically means I only want to discuss YOUR issues and not mine. The point of it is that there are issues everywhere and we are perfectly capable of living with them, as evidenced by all the times people choose to accept them. However, people like to think that where THEY draw the line is the only place that matters, but it isn’t.

 

[Shakesy]

Yes, and no one is advocating for the UK/American governments to buy United. Don't you see that that is the inherent problem? People don't want this club to be owned by a nation state.

I replied before replying. Anyway, to add to my previous response, most objectors don't seem to focus on the nation "state" issue. They object due to human rights abuse (true) and sportswashing (maybe true).

Show me one country that doesn't abuse human rights. Human rights - the biggest lie ever told.

 

[Tarrou]

I don't think they are doing it to sportswash, you guys place an unrealistically high value on how important your views on them are. Smell the coffee, they are already influential in Western society and they have been allowed a way in where they own things more valuable than Manchester United. They don't need to hide behind a club to gain acceptance.

Last night the Emir was in Germany, do you think if he wanted a chat with the Chancellor he'd need to introduce himself as the PSG owner or the guy looking for a loophole to buy United? I bet he wouldn't even need an appointment. They do these things because they want to and they need to prove to their peers that they can.

Remember MBS and the Kashoggi murder? It didnt even cost him a thing and he wont ever pay for it. He didnt buy Newcastle to get defenders online, he simply doesn't care because he is that evil but he is also that powerful.

they are more influential than they would be in part because of sportswashing, obviously

I mean, do you honestly think they paid 10 times more than any world cup in history for the love of the game? For most of the group games in the world cup the VIP seats were all empty, it was only in the latter stages when they were actually filled up with locals. They could barely give a feck about it.

Kashoggi doesn't care but it did cost him something, people think less of him in the west. And the knock-on effect is people trust SA less and are less likely to do business with them.

 

[moses]

I’m well aware what it means. It is this romantic notion of Flex and Goldbridge being on the United board or something and being consulted on decisions. However, a large part of the initial romantic appeal of Sir Jim Ratcliffe was also that we would be owned by a fan. I read many a post to that effect.

By the looks of things, we may not be owned by Ratcliffe, but instead a wealthy fan who is from Qatar.

Again no.

 

[Rozay]

Sportswashing is more subtle and multi-faceted than 'hey everyone, here's some shiny football isn't Qatar great'.

It's about influence, indirect marketing, soft power and the wielding of resources outside their region.

Who was talking about Qatar in the west 10 years ago? Now they're everywhere.

Yes well that is just common sense then. Why wouldn’t every growing country want those things, and why is it being painted as something underhanded, unless the point is that these countries should have no influence, power, resources outside of their region?

 

[moses]

Show me one country that doesn't abuse human rights. Human rights - the biggest lie ever told.

It's not a lie, it's an aspiration.

 

[Rozay]

Again no.

Well I say it is so yes.

 

[Drizzle]

Yes well that is just common sense then. Why wouldn’t every growing country want those things, and why is it being painted as something underhanded, unless the point is that these countries should have no influence, power, resources outside of their region?

Nobody's saying Qatar are out of order for doing this. It's entirely up to them how they wish to wield their resource. It's not underhanded either as it's blatantly obvious what they're doing.

But it doesn't mean we have to accept it or like it. Qatari culture is not the same as that of Manchester and there are legitimate concerns about their human rights practices. But if they act sensitively and don't try to push any moral agendas directly through owning United then it will be accepted. Dirty money rules the world from all parts of the globe, as long as they don't overplay it then we'll all move on.

 

[stevoc]

Qataris will invest in the infrastructure and local community, pay the debt and let the club use what we earn. I am all for it. We will be self sustainable without having to pay off the interest and the leaking roof of the OT will be fixed.

I get where you're coming from but I wouldn't really call that being self sustainable if outside funding separate to the clubs own income is paying for infrastructure like a upgrades to the stadium, training ground etc. Having an outside party paying potentially billions towards United's infrastructure is really no different than them pumping in money to buy players.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

No, they're not. They're deluded and brainwashed like the rest of us.

There is no moral high ground in a world where morals are subjective and usually determined by the status quo. What are morals, really??

Qatar is just as guilty and disgusting as any other country/culture/religion.

But hey, we define ourselves by our convictions, never giving a thought whether the other side has a viable pov. I'm not pro-homophobia or pro anything. I'm just astounded that most people simply can't stand anyone else that doesn't agree with their world view.

Moral relativism is a fallacy. If the UK enforce chattel slavery again tomorrow, would you be perfectly at ease with it? If you go to your neighbor’s house and see him batter the shit out of his wife and children, would it be just ‘another world view’?

Don’t mistake the power of the state and social apparatus to maintain injustice with morals.

 

[Shakesy]

It's not a lie, it's an aspiration.

It's an aspiration? Another lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night. "All men and women are equal." Do we aspire to this, really? We say so. What do we do? "We are equal in the eyes of the law." Another one.

We are a self deluded species with a wonderful imagination and grand aspirations.

 

[Tarrou]

I get where you're coming from but I wouldn't really call that being self sustainable if outside funding separate to the clubs own income is paying for infrastructure like a upgrades to the stadium, training ground etc. Having an outside party paying potentially billions towards United's infrastructure is really no different than them pumping in money to buy players.

It's also a pipe dream. Nobody is gonna come in, pay for the stadium and wotnot and then go, ah you know what I'll let them run themselves now. If they're spending that much money they're gonna throw a lot at the team as well, and whatever else they wanna do.

 

[stevoc]

It's also a pipe dream. Nobody is gonna come in, pay for the stadium and wotnot and then go, ah you know what I'll let them run themselves now. If they're spending that much money they're gonna throw a lot at the team as well, and whatever else they wanna do.

Indeed you are most likely right mate, especially if it's Qatar. Just highlighting that owners pumping billions into a club is the opposite of a club being self sustainable.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

It's not a lie, it's an aspiration.

Men literally fought and died since the dawn of time in slave revolts because surprise, men don’t like to be owned by other men, but yeah, ‘human rights is just a lie’.

I’ll take the warning, but some of you are thick as pig shit. No one would have a problem if you just say I can’t give up on the club, but actually trying to justify the MENA states human rights records with these sort of babbles is hilarious, and sad. Go live in a freaking state where mere decades ago, police barged into your house and dug up your floor to confiscate your own property and tell me that’s just a difference in opinion.

 

[Salford_Red83]

Me: *opens thread*

...

Me: *closes thread*

Also me: Sigh

 

[The Boy]

Course we are a socialist club. Northern England and from Manchester. Manchester is a notoriously socialist city and our club represents it more than any other.

Even today our golden boy Marcus Rashford etc. It’s socialist values and left leaning through and through. Always has been hopefully always will be.

I don't get why people argue this. Manchester United was founded by railway workers from a working class industrialised city ... Manchester. Some of your biggest names from United history spoke out for socialism, Busby talked about the Great Strike of 1926 and the effect it had on him and his core socialist values. SAF was again from a working class background, the docks in Glasgow and is a staunch Labour supporter.

English football as a whole, especially in the north of England has been intimately tied with social issues, the working class and left wing politics for more than a hundred years. As has the city of Manchester.

People and posters will all have different opinions, but being taken over by an elite, ruling family that has little interest in the working class and workers is an anathema to United's rich history. The history of a club is not just trophies, it's its place in the community and its standing as a community asset. Manchester United and indeed most English football clubs have always been about a lot more than, splashing cash on the latest star and winning, it's also about the values of the community and people it represents.

For me to to break away from that so completely is really very sad.

 

[Shakesy]

Moral relativism is a fallacy. If the UK enforce chattel slavery again tomorrow, would you be perfectly at ease with it? If you go to your neighbor’s house and see him batter the shit out of his wife and children, would it be just ‘another world view’?

Don’t mistake the power of the state and social apparatus to maintain injustice with morals.

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

Do you really think, deep down, that the UK are more moral, objectively, than Qatar? Don't answer that. Because this isn't an easy question.

And am I right? Is my view free from prejudices and lies? No. I'm a white South African, living in a country with one of the best constitutions, yet absolutely discriminated against.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Same - I can support the club and loathe the owners with the Glazers in charge. If we're bought by the likes of Qatar I don't think I could still support the club

Surely you can do exactly the same? Bring rainbow flags to grounds, join movements on social media etc?

Not trying to tell you what to do, but to me it seems there's a middle point here. You can continue to support United and overtly reject what the owners stand for (which will hurt them more than it hurt the Glazers, btw).