Dubai a contender to buy Man Utd

[Random Task]

A majority of the western world also support and/or are on friendly terms with Israel, which would mean that no European or American would be able to own United. But apparently Sheikh Makhtoum and his plastic city state built atop the exploitation of migrants would be quite alright.

Even more farcical is that the UAE and Israel are now allies.

The plot thickens.

Let's see how this goes down.

 

[antohan]

The very obvious counter-argument to "sports washing doesn't work" is that these countries have, and continue to spend billions of pounds on doing it. It clearly does work, the upsides are just well masked enough that they aren't obvious to a superficial glance.

I didn't say it didn't.

My take is short term it helps them get varying degrees of acceptance, kudos, seat at the table or even protection from key stakeholders in high places. Not in the court of public opinion, not that they care about that. Nor the money involved, which is peanuts.

Long term though the greater exposure to public opinion should bring more pressure for change, not less. It may even make said people in high places turn their backs eventually, just like with Roman.

In any case, I'm not seeing how them not buying us is going to change anything for the better, while I can see everything that will go wrong with the Glazers continued ownership of our club.

 

[Mockney]

You would think but these threads always seem to prove otherwise.

Yes, it’s a very obvious distinction, but the amount of times people have regurgitated the comparison makes me wonder if they genuinely don’t see a difference, or they do but they want a sale of this nature so feel the need to hamfistedly equate the situations.

As you said, if the USA decided to purchase your club the same people would be opposed to it.

I also particularly like how most of them rely on at least some variety of “well if you’re ok with the Glazers, who do X…” as if the one thing that has full agreement amongst all United fans is the how ok we all are with the Glazers… Those universally beloved owners of ours

It feels like we’ve reached peak grandstanding for the section of the Caf who only pop into the CE forum once a year to make one garbled post about equivalency that gets 15 replies but no follow up

 

[Rado_N]

The very obvious counter-argument to "sports washing doesn't work" is that these countries have, and continue to spend billions of pounds on doing it. It clearly does work, the upsides are just well masked enough that they aren't obvious to a superficial glance.

I remember talking to a guy from Deloitte’s football unit years ago (the guys who create the football finance reports and money league etc) and he was telling me that City accounts for something like 1% of the Abu Dhabi group’s holdings but accounts for around 99% of web traffic about them.

It works.

 

[nimic]

I'll just say the same as when the Saudis were linked to buying us. If this happens I'll no longer support the club until they're gone.

 

[VP89]

Dubai is really expensive now. Bit of a side note but I remember when it was cheap and fun to get away in the winter. Now all the brits have caught on ffs.

 

[Withnail]

Glazers fund arm Israel. That alone makes them more evil than a country that bans homosexuality. Their home country bans abortion, which the Glazers support. This thread is just bizarre. I wonder how many who are against supporting this live in an apartment with Dubai ownership, or have been there as a tourist.

Hypocrisy.

We don't want the Glazers here either fella. I've a mortgage, as if people have much of a choice during a housing crisis so I find that one a bit bizarre, and I refuse to travel to Dubai. Any more whataboutery in your locker?

 

[Dion]

In any case, I'm not seeing how them not buying us is going to change anything for the better, while I can see everything that will go wrong with the Glazers continued ownership of our club.

I won't, but them buying us will certainly change things for the worse.

 

[Ted Lasso]

There's loads who sweared they won't watch it. Might be fun digging their posts in January

You don't have to wait until January...the excuses and mental gymnastics starting fast and hard already! See below

That's a really pompous and snooty way of interacting with fellow football (and United) fans. People aren't stupid. The vast majority are aware that football is increasingly infected by grubby commerce and politicking. People are also deeply connected by football and the World Cup represents the most global and collective form of shared escapism there is. I think people can be forgiven for having conversations about how wrong it is for Qatar to buy the World Cup , and yet still watch their national team compete in it - in the same way that people are aware that it is wrong that Apple and Nike exploit their workers yet still consume their products. Times are harder than ever and it's been an unbelievably bleak past few years. You'd have to be a right arsehole to judge people who feel conflicted about the morals behind the World Cup yet still want to enjoy it by watching it on tele.

Times are harder than ever...so let you privileged folks continue to buy Nike shoes and watch TV in peace?

I'm stunned that you've first thought those things and genuinely rolling with laughter that you've gone and written them out so defiantly and proudly

 

[BD]

I wouldn't support us if this were to happen. Although I can understand how it'd be hard to make that jump for people who are a bit more closely tied to the club than I am.

 

[antohan]

I won't, but them buying us will certainly change things for the worse.

How? Will they get more strict with gay people because they bought a football club?

 

[redcucumber]

Times are harder than ever...so let you privileged folks continue to buy Nike shoes and watch TV in peace?

I'm stunned that you've first thought those things and genuinely rolling with laughter that you've gone and written them out so defiantly and proudly

Ah, yes - because people struggling couldn't possibly have trainers and use smartphones. I can tell what sort of a bloke you are so let's just leave it there. I'm glad you're genuinely rolling around on your floor, though. You don't sound unhinged at all.

 

[Raoul]

How? Will they get more strict with gay people because they bought a football club?

The problem would be allowing a state to own United and in the process allow the United brand to be tied directly to morally questionable actions the state takes on issues unrelated to United.

Obvious examples would be homosexuality is illegal in Dubai. Would this then become an issue that Manchester United would be perceived as condoning ? Other examples include the treatment of migrant workers. This is why this sort of thing makes no sense at all.

Sell to a committed private owner with the cash to buy.

 

[TheReligion]

Why is this thread in here?

 

[Samid]

Why is this thread in here?

We can post memes now without getting banned!

 

[Ted Lasso]

Ah, yes - because people struggling couldn't possibly have trainers and use smartphones. I can tell what sort of a bloke you are so let's just leave it there. I'm glad you're genuinely rolling around on your floor, though. You don't sound unhinged at all.

There are people who are "struggling" and will still give up items of privilege, the likes of certain brands , and opt for seeking out things sourced more humanely or in ways better for the environment etc etc.

Seems from your personal attack that I've hit a nerve because you are not one of those people but rather the one that turns a blind eye and let's things go until they impact you directly. Have you ever given something up because of principles, knowing your continued support caused others harm or distress? Have you ever voted in a way that reflected how that vote might impact more than just yourself?

I'd have more patience for someone that just acknowledges they don't care about others enough to make changes in their own lives. But feigning outrage online and pretending to have some moral upstanding is shameless.

 

[TheReligion]

We can post memes now without getting banned!

 

[2cents]

Putting aside the quest of morals, is nobody interested in the potential consequences of the club’s fortunes being inextricably tied to the ebb and flow of geopolitics in the Gulf? Sure, things have been relatively stable on the Arab side under British and then American stewardship, Gulf War aside. But it’s an area of probably unprecedented interest to all regional and international powers, and nobody can say with any certainty that things are destined to remain calm in the coming decades.

 

[Tyrion]

Emirate in English means Principality, which is a state ruled by a prince, Emir = Prince.

UAE is made of 7 Emirates (Principalities), Abu Dhabi is the ruling emirate is they are the richest and the one that led the charge of a Sheikh who heads up the ruling family (they don't call themselves Emirs/Princes, for example, ruler of Qatar is an Emir)

Ah thanks. So the ruler of Abu Dhabi is a Sheikh but the others are all Emirs?

 

[pratyush_utd]

What has that got to do with this question? They can afford to pay a few billion dollars to buy United. In that sense Emirates Airlines and Dubai airport should be disasters too? They are not. They get professionals to run their business.

Dubai doesn’t have the same amount of money like Abu Dhabi. Question isnt that they are competent owner. Their human rights record isnt great and they wont even be able to fund United like City or PSG owner do. Then whats the point? Stigma will get attached without any benefits.

 

[redcucumber]

There are people who are "struggling" and will still give up items of privilege, the likes of certain brands , and opt for seeking out things sourced more humanely or in ways better for the environment etc etc.

Seems from your personal attack that I've hit a nerve because you are not one of those people but rather the one that turns a blind eye and let's things go until they impact you directly. Have you ever given something up because of principles, knowing your continued support caused others harm or distress? Have you ever voted in a way that reflected how that vote might impact more than just yourself?

I'd have more patience for someone that just acknowledges they don't care about others enough to make changes in their own lives. But feigning outrage online and pretending to have some moral upstanding is shameless.

Personal attack? Where? You were the one that made it randomly personal and you're now trying to frame it the other way around which is a really dodgy thing to do.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post because it's so loaded and unnecessary given my initial response that I genuinely think you've been a bit of a dick here. Have a good one.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

As a member of the Rainbow Devils, I can tell you that we certainly wouldn't be taking this potential takeover lightly!

 

[Ted Lasso]

Personal attack? Where? You were the one that made it randomly personal and you're now trying to frame it the other way around which is a really dodgy thing to do.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post because it's so loaded and unnecessary given my initial response that I genuinely think you've been a bit of a dick here. Have a good one.

It's not loaded. It's straight forward. Stop talking about being a better human being simply for knowing what's wrong and make choices that reflect those words. Or just accept you are self serving and let others be the same without judgement.

 

[antohan]

The problem would be allowing a state to own United and in the process allow the United brand to be tied directly to morally questionable actions the state takes on issues unrelated to United.

Obvious examples would be homosexuality is illegal in Dubai. Would this then become an issue that Manchester United would be perceived as condoning ? Other examples include the treatment of migrant workers. This is why this sort of thing makes no sense at all.

Sell to a committed private owner with the cash to buy.

No, if Manchester United got bought by them there's feck all it can do about that really.

I'd absolutely prefer Ratcliffe but it's the Glazers that will ultimately make that choice.

I'd rather fans focused on what they can do. E.g. instead of scribbling on blankets they could hold male on male snogging contests at OT. These feckers quite simply can do nowt about that in the UK, can they?

 

[Valar Morghulis]

No, if Manchester United got bought by them there's feck all it can do about that really.

I'd absolutely prefer Ratcliffe but it's the Glazers that will ultimately make that choice.

I'd rather fans focused on what they can do. E.g. instead of scribbling on blankets they could hold male on male snogging contests at OT. These feckers quite simply can do nowt about that in the UK, can they?

This is actually a really creative and great idea! I wouldn't be opposed to this.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

And just to expand further on ways to turn these feckers off buying us by embracing homosexual freedoms. It would also be very easy to make some adjustments in the bathroom stalls of Old Trafford that they also wouldn't appreciate. And then hold up signs so they are aware of the changes.

For example: Glory glory hole Man United

 

[antohan]

This is actually a really creative and great idea! I wouldn't be opposed to this.

Imagine them having to locally broadcast games of their own club with a time delay to censor all those juicy bits.

They can of course lobby for whoever has the rights to not catch that, much like pitch invaders are banned. Will the EPL jointly support that? No way.

Or would they? And what would happen then? People watching Sky would be ok with that?

In my mind the greater the exposure the easier it is to run them down and get them tied up in knots, not the other way around. The best way to get no change is no dealings, no exchange, no uproars and we carry on with our ways as they do with theirs.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

@antohan Very true! Simple acts like this being broadcast would make the purchase totally unpalatable for that nation really.

 

[antohan]

And just to expand further on ways to turn these feckers off buying us by embracing homosexual freedoms. It would also be very easy to make some adjustments in the bathroom stalls of Old Trafford that they also wouldn't appreciate. And then hold up signs so they are aware of the changes.

For example: Glory glory hole Man United

So long as you keep it all within the boundaries of UK law.

For instance, you could get different tiers wearing certain colour clothing. We do that regularly in South America even getting stuff "written" on a stand.

How hard is it to pull off a rainbow? Not very. A blowjob may be harder.

 

[jem]

I wouldn’t say it’s just because of Man City but yes there are definitely positive changes, it does take time though. have you visited Abu Dhabi several times in the past 10 years?

No. That’s why I’m curious to hear about these changes.

 

[redcucumber]

It's not loaded. It's straight forward. Stop talking about being a better human being simply for knowing what's wrong and make choices that reflect those words. Or just accept you are self serving and let others be the same without judgement.

This is the way humans are. We are morally conflicted by lots of things nowadays given increased awareness and advances in understanding inequalities but social and cultural customs are real things, as is the power of global corporate marketing. Add all that to the powder keg of the past few years and yeh - things like the World Cup represent a glorious distraction for millions of people who are also aware of the wrongness of Qatar hosting.

Can only those with vegan diets who don't use aeroplanes and cars talk about climate disaster? Can people that only wear and use ethically sourced clothing and electronics talk about corporate corruption? It really isn't as simple as you are positing it. I only ride a bike and use public transport. I rarely eat meat, though I do sometimes - does that make me self-serving and mean I should shut up? To what extent do we need to be committed to being completely perfect individuals that we get to talk about how wrong things are but are still basically forced to consume them because of global corporate monopolies on markets (such as FIFA and the World Cup)?

 

[maniak]

These types of thread are the best proof sportswashing is really effective. A bunch of folks who in normal conditions would absolutely despise these absolute criminals, all of a sudden, because their club can get more cash and more success, start going on about how oh well they're all the same right? And what about those guys over there? fecking embarrassing.

 

[westmeath]

Sportswashing ? You're just regurgitating mainstream talking points.

We have propagandizing into thinking the West doesn't do anything wrong. How about the illegal invasion of Iraq & killing of millions of civilians. Or the illegal detention of Julian Assange.

To be honest I would much prefer a Dubai takeover because they don't have a profit motive. Someone like Sir Jim will be counting every dollar.

Sportswashing isn’t just a talking point, it’s a fact.

A fact that’s causing the World Cup to be played in a tiny but incredibly wealthy country this winter in the middle of the club football season. It’s a form of corruption and is killing the sport.

I didn’t say the west hasn’t done anything wrong and I don’t know what Assange has to do with it.

 

[Withnail]

Sportswashing ? You're just regurgitating mainstream talking points.

We have propagandizing into thinking the West doesn't do anything wrong. How about the illegal invasion of Iraq & killing of millions of civilians. Or the illegal detention of Julian Assange.

To be honest I would much prefer a Dubai takeover because they don't have a profit motive. Someone like Sir Jim will be counting every dollar.

How many Western countries own football teams?

 

[Ted Lasso]

This is the way humans are. We are morally conflicted by lots of things nowadays given increased awareness and advances in understanding inequalities but social and cultural customs are real things, as is the power of global corporate marketing. Add all that to the powder keg of the past few years and yeh - things like the World Cup represent a glorious distraction for millions of people who are also aware of the wrongness of Qatar hosting.

Can only those with vegan diets who don't use aeroplanes and cars talk about climate disaster? Can people that only wear and use ethically sourced clothing and electronics talk about corporate corruption? It really isn't as simple as you are positing it. I only ride a bike and use public transport. I rarely eat meat, though I do sometimes - does that make me self-serving and mean I should shut up? To what extent do we need to be committed to being completely perfect individuals that we get to talk about how wrong things are but are still basically forced to consume them because of global corporate monopolies on markets (such as FIFA and the World Cup)?

Before getting into it, thank you for this response. It's a reasonable opinion and I appreciate the way you've framed it. Personally I disagree and that comes from being broken hearted seeing so many friends and a large population of my countrymen in general feign caring for so long and turn the other way in the face of a genuine choice
when it came down to it they ignored white supremacy and sexist, chauvinist rhetoric because the economic and other self serving implications far exceeded their willingness to stand up for "the other". So that disillusionment enters this subject area as well.

If you're telling others to be more mindful of climate change and animal welfare then yes, you absolutely should be avoiding leather goods and eating plant based. Or to your point , making a strong effort to change. Credit for doing that as well. I'm 100% animal product free myself for some time.

But I don't expect everyone to do the same..

My real issue is with those who are talking about it online and calling out others for not recognizing something like climate change and not doing anything themselves.

In the specific case of football, look at the post right below yours here talking about sports washing. If someone is going out of their way to criticize others for their supporting a football club or tournament due to these socio-political issues then I expect them to not watch the World Cup or follow United after takeover or any of City's games or what have you.

I'd prefer someone to just say they were okay with human rights violations and that's why they'll watch the world cup.

I also have a strong suspicion that many of the anti - middle east influence in sports commentary is racially motivated. It's not fair of me to judge like that but honestly the last several years have proven that giving people benefit of the doubt in this category was overly optimistic and naive. Again, if it were truly about the implications around the nature of ownership of United then this thread should be filled with "abhorrent state. I will not watch United if a takeover happens the same way I am not going to be watching the WC this year for the same reasons."

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

Ah thanks. So the ruler of Abu Dhabi is a Sheikh but the others are all Emirs?

All are Sheikhs, but they rule an Emirate, as in, Abu Dhabi is an Emirate, but it is ruled by Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed.

Qatar, is also an Emirate originally, became an independent country, but it is still ruled by Emir Tamim Bin Hamad

 

[Carolina Red]

Dubai doesn’t have the same amount of money like Abu Dhabi. Question isnt that they are competent owner. Their human rights record isnt great and they wont even be able to fund United like City or PSG owner do. Then whats the point? Stigma will get attached without any benefits.

2015 GDP of $105 billion, so not exactly paupers.

 

[VidaRed]

I also have a strong suspicion that many of the anti - middle east influence in sports commentary is racially motivated. It's not fair of me to judge like that but honestly the last several years have proven that giving people benefit of the doubt in this category was overly optimistic and naive. Again, if it were truly about the implications around the nature of ownership of United then this thread should be filled with "abhorrent state. I will not watch United if a takeover happens the same way I am not going to be watching the WC this year for the same reasons."

I think you may onto something tangible here.

 

[VidaRed]

Ah thanks. So the ruler of Abu Dhabi is a Sheikh but the others are all Emirs?

See below.

The United Arab Emirates is an elective monarchy formed from a federation of seven emirates, consisting of Abu Dhabi (the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm Al Quwain. Each emirate is governed by an Emir.

The Emirate of Dubai is ruled by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Dubai is the capital of Emirate of Dubai and is bordered to the south by the emirate of Abu Dhabi, to the northeast by the emirate of Sharjah, to the southeast by the country of Oman, to the east by the emirate of Ajman, and to the north by the emirate of Ras Al Khaimah.

The UAE capital – and by far the wealthiest emirate – Abu Dhabi has also seen a population boom in the last 50 years. But there is a marked difference between the UAE’s two most successful emirates – Abu Dhabi still relies on oil for much of its wealth. Today less than 1% of Dubai’s GDP is from oil – at one time it was over half.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/dubai-uae-transformation/

 

[Champ]

There are absolutely no concrete links to Dubai wanting to buy United.

Why does this thread even exist other than to serve those who can't see right from wrong, or love a good bit of whataboutism?