Eddy_JukeZ
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
- Messages
- 17,536
Does this actually have legs?
I thought it was a silly rumor.
I thought it was a silly rumor.
This Saudi Prince clearly wants to play real life FM on cheat mode, happily for us he wants to play as Man United
Does this actually have legs?
I thought it was a silly rumor.
Hard to say right now, Sky have got involved but they've been shaky with their stories for a while now. We'll just have to wait and see if anything develops over the next few weeks.Does this actually have legs?
I thought it was a silly rumor.
Nothing to stop the Prince from buying shares though....
is this guy richer then the one that owns shitty?
Buzzkill.I still think it is.
People on Twitter added 2+2 together because a Glazer is going to some conference in Saudi Arabia next week.
The Star picked up on people talking about it and ran a story on it.
The Sun then followed suit.
Then all the rumours caused the Man Utd stock to rise...
Saudi Arabia don't mind this subject being in the news, the Glazers are licking their lips just in case, the papers are getting all their clicks and then Sky come out with their usual contradictory report for more attention...
I don't expect this will come to fruition at all to be honest.
I've met loads who think the club is just a hollow shell these days. Plenty of them have sacked off going since the takeover as it just isn't the same club they used to support.
They are the definition of desperate. A nothing club, with fans whos only claim to fame is that they enjoyed being losers. They would have sold their souls, or their nan for a League Cup.
They are not in the same division.
I obviously don't mean that solely in regard to football club support, but I'm sure you already knew that. Sometimes an individual or small group of people making a personal stand against something results in actual positive change to society.
who is the richest?
The Saudis, by an absolutely enormous margin.
This is your view and I respect but disagree with it. Ownership means a lot. If ownership meant nothing, they would not buy the club. The fact that they would buy United by common sense means that ownership means something.Ownership means absolutely nothing. We wont be run by blood money. People fail to understand United make their own revenue. All the Saudis would do is invest it back into the club rather than take dividends.
Our fans like to turn their nose up at people who would improve the club, same fans who only moan about glazers when we are losing. Prawn sandwich eating snobs.
There's a clear difference between a company or club owner being based in a country and a club owner being the ruling family governing the whole country. If you can't see that then i don't know what to tell you...So the majority do not want the immoral Saudis while the same lot are quite happy to be strung along by a family from the only country to have used a nuclear bomb...
A fast camel could partner Smalling instead of Jones.Hope it's true mainly cuz it would mean we can finally get rid Jones and Smalling and buy a decent defender.
Mansour family is worth $1 trillion, Saudi family $1.4 trillion.who is the richest?
They ‘were’ the definition of desperate.
A fast camel could partner Smalling instead of Jones.
is this guy richer then the one that owns shitty?
Yea you're correct, I hadn't read the whole thread, so maybe I came in at a bit of tangent. I still think there's a difference between a minor? sponsor and the owners being serial human rights abusers, to the point that it would justify people taking a different stance regarding their love for the club.
I see it kind of like this:
Minor sponsor: club is condoning it
Owners: club is effectively promoting it
Again though, it is possible for people to be passionate about human rights but simply unaware of our sponsors being suspect.
They are also in a dick measuring contest right now, so if it happens, be prepared for Qatar vs Saudi Arabia in Manchester.
They are also in a dick measuring contest right now, so if it happens, be prepared for Qatar vs Saudi Arabia in Manchester.
That's what
City are Abu Dhabi. Psg are Qatari.
Actually the owners of City are from UAE Royal Family . So it will be UAE vs Saudi Arabia in Manchester . PSG is the team owned by the Qatari Royal Family .
Relying on a country that is 100 years behind the civilised world when it comes to women's rights to build a stadium for our women's team? Not sure that's the best plan.
Its strange, I just don't think Utd would benefit from a state takeover. Would we ever spend more than our annual income anyway? It would guarantee us spending it all on players I suppose and always backing the manager but take the Pogba / Lukaku summers. Would all of this be worth it so we can sign a Verrarti type player alongside them?
I'm pretty sure we can afford Mbappe as we stand
I know the Saudis are brutal dictators but imagine no Jones and Young...