Could Utd be sold soon?

Could be wrong or could have just read a lot of "fake news" but i was under the impression that Mohammed Bin Salman was an advocate for social reform in Saudi Arabia and has already taken great strides towards dragging the country forward from the dark ages?

Or was it just propaganda?
 
Johnnyredboots said:
Could be wrong or could have just read a lot of "fake news" but i was under the impression that Mohammed Bin Salman was an advocate for social reform in Saudi Arabia and has already taken great strides towards dragging the country forward from the dark ages?

Or was it just propaganda?
Click to expand...
You may need to pay more attention to world affairs than what comes through your twitter feed :lol:
 
Johnnyredboots said:
In case you didn't realize I was actually asking a question, hence the question marks. I certainly wasn't asking for a snide reply. :o
Click to expand...
And I answered it. If you have been led to believe that MbS (who is not the leader but the crown prince) is "dragging" the Saudi's into a more transparent and liberated 21st Century then you may have been misled.

Starting a reply with "The joke's on you …" doesn't illustrate that you wanted a serious response.

I'm sorry if I upset you in any way and if you honestly want some factual material with references and links to facts, so you can make up your own mind, let me know and I'll send them or post as a reply.
 
SqueakyWeasel said:
And I answered it. If you have been led to believe that MbS (who is not the leader but the crown prince) is "dragging" the Saudi's into a more transparent and liberated 21st Century then you may have been misled.

Starting a reply with "The joke's on you …" doesn't illustrate that you wanted a serious response.

I'm sorry if I upset you in any way and if you honestly want some factual material with references and links to facts, so you can make up your own mind, let me know and I'll send them or post as a reply.
Click to expand...

Nah you didn't upset me, its no big deal.

To be honest the last i heard about this guy was that he pushed through some reforms that allowed women to start driving in Saudi Arabia after previously not being allowed to under law. So whether it was just his propaganda machine and spin doctors going into overdrive to improve international perception? or he really is trying to what he can to make the country a better place for everyone i honestly don't know.
 
Johnnyredboots said:
Nah you didn't upset me, its no big deal.

To be honest the last i heard about this guy was that he pushed through some reforms that allowed women to start driving in Saudi Arabia after previously not being allowed to under law. So whether it was just his propaganda machine and spin doctors going into overdrive to improve international perception? or he really is trying to what he can to make the country a better place for everyone i honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
To touch on the theme you mention (which is just scratching the surface): They trumpeted this move amongst heavy worldwide press and media coverage but what was hidden was the fact that the people who had campaigned vocally (domestically and internationally) for this were rounded up a few days before and some have not been seen since.

Many people covered this, love him or hate him, John Oliver sums it up nicely:

 
SqueakyWeasel said:
To touch on the theme you mention (which is just scratching the surface): They trumpeted this move amongst heavy worldwide press and media coverage but what was hidden was the fact that the people who had campaigned vocally (domestically and internationally) for this were rounded up a few days before and some have not been seen since.

Many people covered this, love him or hate him, John Oliver sums it up nicely:

Click to expand...


ahh ok dude thanks for the info, guess i need to pay more attention.

*signs up for twitter :D
 
rojo81 said:
I dont understand how many people would like something like this. Money is important but United have plenty as it is. The most succesfull clubs of the last years, Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and Juventus, are all run like traditional clubs. Yes, they have massive budgets but so does United. On the other hand, of all the "new rich" clubs, only Chelsea has had significant success. Maybe City is on their way to that, but I honestly dont see them winning the champions league soon.
Click to expand...
None of those clubs are competing with one (or more) of these "new rich" clubs in their domestic leagues though which would impact their ability to attract the best players coming into their league and eventually dilute the quality of their squads and then if they had other teams close by in terms of quality they could see themselves dropping out of the Champions League now and again if they had poor seasons instead of having to settle for 2nd or 3rd like they do now.

Having said that I think we have more than enough money to be competing with the best teams around, we just have to start spending it better, the returns on the player investments we've made over the last 5 years have been atrocious.
 
If the Arabs really intend to buy Manchester United, I think that the Glazers would snap their hand off, if they offered 4bn. Then we would have to accept it I suppose, nothing much we can do really.
 
endless_wheelies said:
2 questions for all those against this takeover:

1) If the Saudis slipped a cheeky £100bn cheque down your asscrack would you refuse to cash it?

2) Did the Qataris' purchase of PSG and the World Cup make you more aware, or less aware of their regime's failings?
Click to expand...
I've not taken a proper stance on the topic yet but would like to respond to the questions regardless.

1. I could justify taking their money & cashing it in by donating a large percentage (99% or more even) to helping people in trouble. Money they have will be used some way anyway and I would much rather see it be spent on positive things than negative. If taking their money would mean I had to help validate what they do in any way then I would hopefully refuse.

2. I believe it was part of it. But I think it began with Chelsea being taken over by Abramovich when I started to care more about issues behind the owners in a casual 'i will click and read stories on them' kind of way.

Going back to the first question I believe whether a purchase of United would change minds or not. If they just spend money on the club then it's money spent on players, wages and that sort of stuff that they can't spend on other stuff, like politics.
If however they were successful in making people less aware or care less about the stuff they do then I'd say no.
I do think people knew less of UAE before City was bought, and that the purchase got a lot of stuff into peoples minds. United being so popular would certainly make those kind of stories reach more people.

Ultimately I think my answer would generally be that I think it would be bad, but if it happens then I still believe it can be for the betterment of the club & more importantly for making people aware of the stuff behind the scenes and put pressure on politicians to do something.
 


over a billion pound was taken of the club by the leeches Glazers

A fecking billion ffs.

Imagine how much could sir Alex invested if he had that money, we could have been with 5 or 6 extra champions league with this money.

I hate them so much and I wish the saudis or who the feck are take over the club and kick those bastards away.
 
Giggsyking said:


over a billion pound was taken of the club by the leeches Glazers

A fecking billion ffs.

Imagine how much could sir Alex invested if he had that money, we could have been with 5 or 6 extra champions league with this money.

I hate them so much and I wish the saudis or who the feck are take over the club and kick those bastards away.
Click to expand...


Not defending Glazers.

But why do people seem to think all that money would have gone to Fergie? If we were a PLC it would have gone to shareholders too. So Fergie having a billion to spend would have exaggerated it.

We also could have spent a billion and still lost to the best Barca team ever in 09 and 11. Just look how Madrid fared against them after spending a lot of money.

Fergie also was very reluctant to spend towards the end of his tenure. He became Wenger like in the market looking for value. I don’t believe that bollocks about agent fees with Hazard. Fergie was just too stubborn. Where as you look with Pogba the Glazers were happy to pay the fee. He could have got Hazard if he wanted to but didn’t want to submit to agent demands.

Everything the Glazers have done after Fergie has left suggests it was him who was not willing to spend.
 
Bojan11 said:
Not defending Glazers.

But why do people seem to think all that money would have gone to Fergie? If we were a PLC it would have gone to shareholders too. So Fergie having a billion to spend would have exaggerated it.

We also could have spent a billion and still lost to the best Barca team ever in 09 and 11. Just look how Madrid fared against them after spending a lot of money.

Fergie also was very reluctant to spend towards the end of his tenure. He became Wenger like in the market looking for value. I don’t believe that bollocks about agent fees with Hazard. Fergie was just too stubborn. Where as you look with Pogba the Glazers were happy to pay the fee. He could have got Hazard if he wanted to but didn’t want to submit to agent demands.

Everything the Glazers have done after Fergie has left suggests it was him who was not willing to spend.
Click to expand...
You don't think 1 billion can make a difference?
City and Chelsea owners pumped 1 billion in their clubs while ours stole 1 billion
2 billion in difference between us and them, if Abramovic had taken over our club instead of Chelsea, we would have not been in this state from the beginning, as fans, our number one hope to be back as the biggest club in England is to get rid of the fecking leeches.
Listen to the video and you understand why Fergie couldn't compete with other clubs financially
 
Relax everyone, it was a fight that got out of control. We've all seen them. Deal is back on.
 
Giggsyking said:
You don't think 1 billion can make a difference?
City and Chelsea owners pumped 1 billion in their clubs while ours stole 1 billion
2 billion in difference between us and them, if Abramovic had taken over our club instead of Chelsea, we would have not been in this state from the beginning, as fans, our number one hope to be back as the biggest club in England is to get rid of the fecking leeches.
Listen to the video and you understand why Fergie couldn't compete with other clubs financially
Click to expand...

Let me get straight, their owner needs to put more money into the squad because they weren't a strong club so they will need to make massive investment for transfer window, wages and other things, for them to become contenders, not self-sufficient as us, Glazers have brought self-sufficient club that is one of the world's richest club and is challenging for UCL and EPL,

1 billion is exaggerating, it's just myh. Yeah, Glazers may take out, but it's less than 400m as his family have taken out 15-20m each year, other costs were used to finance debt payment and other things, profit goes down because we pay interest. There is a zone where we are better off paying interest as we make less profit and thus less tax. I don't like Glazers saddling us with debts, I'd prefer if the debt were the reason for a new stadium we would have to pay for it.
 
deafepl said:
Let me get straight, their owner needs to put more money into the squad because they weren't a strong club so they will need to make massive investment for transfer window, wages and other things, for them to become contenders, not self-sufficient as us, Glazers have brought self-sufficient club that is one of the world's richest club and is challenging for UCL and EPL,

1 billion is exaggerating, it's just myh. Yeah, Glazers may take out, but it's less than 400m as his family have taken out 15-20m each year, other costs were used to finance debt payment and other things, profit goes down because we pay interest. There is a zone where we are better off paying interest as we make less profit and thus less tax. I don't like Glazers saddling us with debts, I'd prefer if the debt were the reason for a new stadium we would have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
No matter how much you explain, it does not take away the fact that the day the took over the club they burdened the club in one night with 600 million pounds debt. This debt has been the biggest hinder SAF faced in improving his team specially before he retired.
 
Giggsyking said:
You don't think 1 billion can make a difference?
City and Chelsea owners pumped 1 billion in their clubs while ours stole 1 billion
2 billion in difference between us and them, if Abramovic had taken over our club instead of Chelsea, we would have not been in this state from the beginning, as fans, our number one hope to be back as the biggest club in England is to get rid of the fecking leeches.
Listen to the video and you understand why Fergie couldn't compete with other clubs financially
Click to expand...

You can't really steal from your own business, the debt they saddled the club with no doubt hindered us in the transfer market.

But you have to stop thinking about football clubs as if they are all vanity/PR projects like City and PSG. Owners taking money from profits is normal in the vast majority of football clubs and businesses in general. Very few companies are run at massive losses like City and Chelsea were.
 
Jed I. Knight said:
Yeah, I know it’s imposturous to entertain the notion that the world is moving forward. Take a look at how the Adidas Parley line has been doing, and come back and tell me more about how social responsibility can’t be leveraged for corporate profits. Or take a look at how Apple are using fully environmentally friendly production processes as a selling point, or leveraging consumer privacy to justify higher profit margins.

You’re stuck in about thirty years in the past, mate. But feel free to quote me in a decade if I’m wrong about my prediction in the post you quoted. But I won’t be.
Click to expand...
Sorry missed your post.

What you're describing are little easy causes tacked on to specific products as a nice extra USP to young idealistic consumers. The broader definitive link between brand perception and overall company performance that you described in your first post is still not there, it's just a might, maybe, chicken/egg big companies vs CSR investment deflection tool from bad publicity and regulation.

Out of curiosity what specifically would you want Manchester United to do to become the world's first ethical football club?
 
The Glazer family, love em or hate em are very shrewd business people. They bought the club with other peoples cash, pay themselves massive dividends each year as they watch their investment grow. MUFC is a licence to print money, its a money making machine. When United get the tv rights to screen their own games live worldwide they will become so rich it will make the oil rich fellas paupers pushing pennies. United would be so rich it really would be world domination, simples.
 
Adnan said:
Click to expand...

United's co-owners know that they will have to tread carefully as the Crown Prince is embroiled in a tense diplomatic row over the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

But Bin Salman will not be put off his bid to take control at Old Trafford, although the Glazers are likely to want a solution to his personal problems before entering into any sort of dialogue.
Click to expand...
Could probably be a while before any more news on this then, the Khashoggi murder won't be going away any time soon.
 
Well player contract negotiations would be simpler if MBS takes over....Minor house of Saud royal arrives with suitcase...player thinks it's full of cash.

Suitcase is opened to reveal blood stained bone saw...player gulps and says where do i sign!

Do we want to be run like that?
 
It'll really hurt the league If this happens, especially since there will never be rules that would limit our spending so we wouldn't have an advantage over the rest.
Imagine two versions of this City side in the one league. At least if Pep leaves we could see them fall back a bit but with two sides then there's always one to pick up the slack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.