State sportswashing ownership or Profit-seeking ownership?

LawCharltonBest

Enjoys watching porn..with foxes
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
17,578
Location
Salford
I've seen this debated across Redcafe, fanzines and social media and thought it deserved a thread. But MODS feel free to close if this is too similar to other threads

People seem to think the two likeliest options are A state Backed takeover or a PE type takeover which would be owners not looking to invest or bothered about on-field success, but seeking a profit. Add your own thoughts.

I respect everyone's opinion, but request that you explain your reasons
 
Last edited:
Being brutally honest. I want people that run the club well. People that care enough to fix the stadium, take action when their staffing decisions are clearly detrimental to the squad, and focus the business towards winning football matches - preferably in a sustainable way.

As long as they do that, I don't really care.
 
States already own key infrastructure in the UK and somehow them owning a football club is apparently a red line.

I just want someone who runs the club well at this point. Ideally with no Ronaldo bullshit like using him to get the WC to Saudi
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Generally people are considering these as the 2 realistic options and therefore I've seen several debates regarding which would be better/worse for United. Thanks.
Click to expand...

An American consortium "like the Glazers" is not a realistic prospect. Nobody is taking over United in a £5bn+ leveraged buy out (with the debt being loaded on to the club's balance sheet). Comparing that hypothetical to a "monster sportswashing project" is a transparent attempt by you to swing the outcome of any potential poll in this thread, towards your preferred option of a state buyout.
 
Infra-red said:
An American consortium "like the Glazers" is not a realistic prospect. Nobody is taking over United in a £5bn+ leveraged buy out (with the debt being loaded on to the club's balance sheet). Comparing that hypothetical to a "monster sportswashing project" is a transparent attempt by you to swing the outcome of any potential poll in this thread, towards your preferred option of a state buyout.
Click to expand...
You're seriously reading too much in to it

I made the thread for pure interest into fan feeling. Clearly it's pointless when this bollocks comes thrown at me
 
This is why some of you who went into the weeds of morality and ethics have created a problem for yourselves.

I never cared too much about the morality of City's owners. I criticised the fact they are/were a small club who were bought on the cheap and then turned into a franchise which doesn't resemble the old team at all and that their successful is artificial as a result.

I couldnt really give a monkeys who owns United. I just want to club to be able to operate on a level playing field based on being able to generate and utilise its own resources.
 
Lentwood said:
This is why some of you who went into the weeds of morality and ethics have created a problem for yourselves.

I never cared too much about the morality of City's owners. I criticised the fact they are/were a small club who were bought on the cheap and then turned into a franchise which doesn't resemble the old team at all and that their successful is artificial as a result.

I couldnt really give a monkeys who owns United. I just want to club to be able to operate on a level playing field based on being able to generate and utilise its own resources.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this where I'm at. In fact, I'm not too sure I ever bemoaned City for being bought by Abu Dhabi. My issue was always why we didn't have better owners, as ours are SH*T!

Ps, mods, can we not get a poll going on this topic?
 
All the "State" owned examples in Football right now have been run brilliantly. City, PSG, more recently Newcastle. While the latter have been a mess. We need owners who are passionate about the football, are obsessed with winning and look for long-term success, the business bit coming in 2nd.

In my opinion that is only possible with the State Ownership.
 
are the Chelsea owners definitely there for profit? the actions don’t suggest that so far, they just look like rich cnuts having fun with a sports team

Supposedly for profit owners have spent more than anyone I can remember
 
LawCharltonBest said:
You're seriously reading too much in to it

I made the thread for pure interest into fan feeling. Clearly it's pointless when this bollocks comes thrown at me
Click to expand...

Fine. Far be it for me to tell the mods how to run their own site, but I would say that it makes a lot more sense (and indeed would be much more interesting) to save the polling for a time when we might have a bit more of an idea about who the different prospective buyers are (could be as little as a month from now), rather than having yet another thread arguing the toss between hypotheticals that are unlikely ever to come to fruition.
 
Tarrou said:
are the Chelsea owners definitely there for profit? the actions don’t suggest that so far, they just look like rich cnuts having fun with a sports team

Supposedly for profit owners have spent more than anyone I can remember
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but they hope to do it by growing the value of the asset through spending not just on the team, but also the infrastructure of the club. It has been a whirlwind six months and Boehly has not covered himself in glory, but Clearlake have tens of billions at their disposal, and it is not hard to see how, if they direct those vast resources via knowledgeable people with experience in the game (rather than a know-nothing lunatic on the tilt), that they could end up with a successful project.

They are not the same as the Glazers.
 
Infra-red said:
Yes they are, but they hope to do it by growing the value of the asset through spending not just on the team, but also the infrastructure of the club. It has been a whirlwind six months and Boehly has not covered himself in glory, but Clearlake have tens of billions at their disposal, and it is not hard to see how, if they direct those vast resources via knowledgeable people with experience in the game (rather than a know-nothing lunatic on the tilt), that they could end up with a successful project.

They are not the same as the Glazers.
Click to expand...

They have taken £800m credit to fund the Chelsea project.

As you say they’ll definitely want a return on this and to pay it back.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I've seen this debated across Redcafe, fanzines and social media and thought it deserved a thread. But MODS feel free to close if this is too similar to other threads

Ideally we'd have a poll - but discussion should be good anyway if people contribute their thoughts

Broadly we're looking at oil money with the human rights complexities seeking a monster sportswashing project vs an American consortium who ultimately are seeking profits who, like the Glazers, will not invest their own money into the club or prioritise the clubs on-field success

I respect everyone's opinion, but request that you explain your reasons
Click to expand...


I have gay friends. Good people. For that reason alone I cant really sit and watch the club be owned by a state owned consortim from the UAE knowing that the same people would imprison my friends if they would happen to be born and live here for being who they are. I understand that there is reform taking place in relation to things like freedom of the press and free speech, but that also does not take away from the by now well established fact that Mohammed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi executed.

Any time I see our fans say that they "dont really care" who owns the club, I invite you to listen to the audio of Kashoggi pleading before his voice left the world forever. Any type of ownership even remotely connected to bin Salman should repulse you.

American consortiums showed their true colors when they attempted to ruin the sport as we know it, turning the clubs into a franchise with lifetime rights rather than accomplishments in domestic leagues. They can speak the PR words as much as they want, we all know that they would jump at the chance to secure their investments with less risk than they currently do. Its a numbers game, not a passion.

The only type of ownership I would be remotely happy with is a fan owned, or UK based ownership through Ratcliffe. Anything else will make me disappointed.
 
Tom Cato said:
I have gay friends. Good people. For that reason alone I cant really sit and watch the club be owned by a state owned consortim from the UAE knowing that the same people would imprison my friends if they would happen to be born and live here for being who they are. I understand that there is reform taking place in relation to things like freedom of the press and free speech, but that also does not take away from the by now well established fact that Mohammed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi executed.

Any time I see our fans say that they "dont really care" who owns the club, I invite you to listen to the audio of Kashoggi pleading before his voice left the world forever. Any type of ownership even remotely connected to bin Salman should repulse you.

American consortiums showed their true colors when they attempted to ruin the sport as we know it, turning the clubs into a franchise with lifetime rights rather than accomplishments in domestic leagues. They can speak the PR words as much as they want, we all know that they would jump at the chance to secure their investments with less risk than they currently do. Its a numbers game, not a passion.

The only type of ownership I would be remotely happy with is a fan owned, or UK based ownership through Ratcliffe. Anything else will make me disappointed.
Click to expand...

I’ll second this.

+ United have too much history, too much character, too much soul to be turned into a hollow sportswashing project. There’s no need to invalidate the results we get on the pitch. Every result after oil/state money will be a shallow result of just that like with City, not by what we have worked our way up to being.

Unions have roots in Manchester. Marx started in Manchester. If we end up with the direct opposite of this, I hope revolt will follow.
 
Infra-red said:
Yes they are, but they hope to do it by growing the value of the asset through spending not just on the team, but also the infrastructure of the club. It has been a whirlwind six months and Boehly has not covered himself in glory, but Clearlake have tens of billions at their disposal, and it is not hard to see how, if they direct those vast resources via knowledgeable people with experience in the game (rather than a know-nothing lunatic on the tilt), that they could end up with a successful project.

They are not the same as the Glazers.
Click to expand...

how does spunking 300m on players and firing the manager after 7 games fit with any discernible for profit strategy though?

it just feels like rich dickheads messing around
 
Infra-red said:
Fine. Far be it for me to tell the mods how to run their own site, but I would say that it makes a lot more sense (and indeed would be much more interesting) to save the polling for a time when we might have a bit more of an idea about who the different prospective buyers are (could be as little as a month from now), rather than having yet another thread arguing the toss between hypotheticals that are unlikely ever to come to fruition.
Click to expand...
Polling isn't my aim

Anyway i've slightly altered the OP. On reflection I should have simply asked if people would want a state ownership and left the alternative up to the reader. But if you think it being one or the other is "unlikely" then I feel bad for you with what's to come.

For the record, since you assume a state ownership is what I want. It would actually be a bid like Ratcliffe, assuming he had plans in place for capital investment, let United spend their own money and his main motivation was to help the club be successful. But realistically I believe an American consortium will be the target for the Glazers, with the hope that a state backed bid comes in with ridiculous money.
 
As much as it pains me, state ownership is the only way to compete these days and will be moving forward. For profit ownership will always look at ways to skim money off the top at the expense of success and the fans (customers)
 
Saudi Arabia just put a man on death row because he used Twitter and WhatsApp to criticize the government.
If you are prepared to put up with that, you need to reassess your priorities.
 
Both quoted replies below are exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks to you both

Tom Cato said:
I have gay friends. Good people. For that reason alone I cant really sit and watch the club be owned by a state owned consortim from the UAE knowing that the same people would imprison my friends if they would happen to be born and live here for being who they are. I understand that there is reform taking place in relation to things like freedom of the press and free speech, but that also does not take away from the by now well established fact that Mohammed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi executed.

Any time I see our fans say that they "dont really care" who owns the club, I invite you to listen to the audio of Kashoggi pleading before his voice left the world forever. Any type of ownership even remotely connected to bin Salman should repulse you.

American consortiums showed their true colors when they attempted to ruin the sport as we know it, turning the clubs into a franchise with lifetime rights rather than accomplishments in domestic leagues. They can speak the PR words as much as they want, we all know that they would jump at the chance to secure their investments with less risk than they currently do. Its a numbers game, not a passion.

The only type of ownership I would be remotely happy with is a fan owned, or UK based ownership through Ratcliffe. Anything else will make me disappointed.
Click to expand...

Very well said. And I agree, Ratcliffe is the only expected bid we know of so far that I would be quite excited about. You'd think he'll allow United to remain competitive with oil money in the transfer market as well as being (as far as we know) free of any major skeletons in his closet. Ignoring the Chelsea stuff, it encourages me that he has been part of our fanbase too and that he doesn't come from money like most billionaires do. He'll know the working class heritage.

crossy1686 said:
As much as it pains me, state ownership is the only way to compete these days and will be moving forward. For profit ownership will always look at ways to skim money off the top at the expense of success and the fans (customers)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this may also be true. If I needed United to win the Champions League or the Premier League in the next 3-5 years and that was my only motivation then I think oil money is the only way we'd be likely to achieve it.
 
I don't really like the idea of being state owned. I don't think we need state ownership to compete at the top level, just that the owners are 100% committed to the club and have adequately deep pockets.

We've outspent pretty much everyone bar City (we have even possible spent more than them?) since SAF left. What has been missing is strategy, direction and a manager like ETH, not the backing of the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, or whatever way you want to put it. FFP has to some degree negated that effect, and we have as much financial power as anyone.

I don't want to see us being PE owned either. I think for a club the size of United, there has to be a third option? Surely there's someone out there who can take over the club and deliver the success and financial backing we require?

At the end of the day though, if we get back to the top table of European football, are you going to stop watching? I don't want to be a hypocrite, but I want to watch United winning trophies again. To some greedy and hypocritical extent, I don't care how it's achieved.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Both quoted replies below are exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks to you both



Very well said. And I agree, Ratcliffe is the only expected bid we know of so far that I would be quite excited about. You'd think he'll allow United to remain competitive with oil money in the transfer market as well as being (as far as we know) free of any major skeletons in his closet. Ignoring the Chelsea stuff, it encourages me that he has been part of our fanbase too and that he doesn't come from money like most billionaires do. He'll know the working class heritage.



Unfortunately this may also be true. If I needed United to win the Champions League or the Premier League in the next 3-5 years and that was my only motivation then I think oil money is the only way we'd be likely to achieve it.
Click to expand...
And I just want to follow this up with, if we do end up with state ownership, don’t boycott the club, hold them accountable instead, insist on the women’s team being heavily funded, ensure openly gay men and women feel comfortable working for the club etc.

Regards to the team, it’s not just about having the funds to buy anymore, it’s also about having the funds to jettison failed big money transfers at cost without holding on to them for seasons because no one wants to cover their salary or pay a fee.

And the final thing, ticket prices will go through the roof if we get for profit owners. They will price out local fans.
 
ROFLUTION said:
I’ll second this.

+ United have too much history, too much character, too much soul to be turned into a hollow sportswashing project. There’s no need to invalidate the results we get on the pitch. Every result after oil/state money will be a shallow result of just that like with City, not by what we have worked our way up to being.

Unions have roots in Manchester. Marx started in Manchester. If we end up with the direct opposite of this, I hope revolt will follow.
Click to expand...
That ballad you wrote is all fine and dandy but are you aware of who is in charge of United right now? And how much does a football shirt cost?

I feel I'm living in an alternate universe to some of you.
 
Rightnr said:
That ballad you wrote is all fine and dandy but are you aware of who is in charge of United right now? And how much does a football shirt cost?

I feel I'm living in an alternate universe to some of you.
Click to expand...

Do you somehow sum me up like I want the current owners? Or that I think Glazers and an ME-sportswashing-project is the same moral wise? Because I don't - There's many nuances, and hopefully you can see the difference between the Glazers and a sportswashing project too. In fact that's the premise of this whole thread, so I can't be the only one not seeing Glazers the same way as a sportswashing project.
 
ROFLUTION said:
I’ll second this.

+ United have too much history, too much character, too much soul to be turned into a hollow sportswashing project. There’s no need to invalidate the results we get on the pitch. Every result after oil/state money will be a shallow result of just that like with City, not by what we have worked our way up to being.

Unions have roots in Manchester. Marx started in Manchester. If we end up with the direct opposite of this, I hope revolt will follow.
Click to expand...
Being owned by a massive capitalism based machine will equally destroy all those things. Ticket prices, through the roof for a start. How do you recoup £6b? Go global, that’s how, Manchester United hasn’t belonged to Manc’s for a long time, it’s a global club.
 
It removes the sporting element of sport for me

city, chelsea, Newcastle, wouldn’t be where they are without a silly amount of money being thrown at them
Their success will always be treated with a shrug of shoulders from me, they’ll never know what’s it’s like to be there by merit
 
Ideally I would prefer a business venture whose intention is to hire the best-in-class to run the entire football side of things while they stay the hell out of the way, and rather than taking any money out of the club they only look to make profit through the club increasing in value. I'd also hope they would put money into the infrastructure of the club to work on the stadium and such, but not necessarily the team itself since the club should make enough money to handle that side of things itself. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to find those right owners who wouldn't simply bleed the club dry, or wouldn't want to be involved in the running of things themselves (which we certainly don't want unless they have significant experience in football already).

I'm also ok (not happy, but ok) with state ownership if that state isn't too 'evil'.
 
Lentwood said:
This is why some of you who went into the weeds of morality and ethics have created a problem for yourselves.

I never cared too much about the morality of City's owners. I criticised the fact they are/were a small club who were bought on the cheap and then turned into a franchise which doesn't resemble the old team at all and that their successful is artificial as a result.

I couldnt really give a monkeys who owns United. I just want to club to be able to operate on a level playing field based on being able to generate and utilise its own resources.
Click to expand...
How is it a problem for me? I’m against state ownership whoever they are. That won’t change regardless of what happens in the next 2 months
 
ROFLUTION said:
Do you somehow sum me up like I want the current owners? Or that I think Glazers and an ME-sportswashing-project is the same moral wise? Because I don't - There's many nuances, and hopefully you can see the difference between the Glazers and a sportswashing project too. In fact that's the premise of this whole thread, so I can't be the only one not seeing Glazers the same way as a sportswashing project.
Click to expand...
Well, what would you propose?

Top level football is basically gatekept by huge, huge money right now. And the Glazers have brought us to a point where even within that group, only a select few can stop a permanent and sustained decline of our club.

For anyone saying Ratcliffe, please read up on the guy and his Ineos company. They're hardly a paragon of virtue.

So, at the end, what do you propose that's realistic without a huge change in political thinking with regard to the industry?
 
crossy1686 said:
Being owned by a massive capitalism based machine will equally destroy all those things. Ticket prices, through the roof for a start. How do you recoup £6b? Go global, that’s how, Manchester United hasn’t belonged to Manc’s for a long time, it’s a global club.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I still support United. The OP asks which I am in favor of, and to me being owned by a state is something on a completely different scale than being owned by the Glazers.

I hate the Glazers, but I'd hate it even more being an active part as a fan of sportswashing a dictatorship. This for me, takes an ME ownership to another level. We as fans, if we don't do anything pro-actively, becomes part of sportswashing whether you like it or not. I'm therefore not sure I'll be a United fan if we get taken over by a state.
 
Rightnr said:
Well, what would you propose?

Top level football is basically gatekept by huge, huge money right now. And the Glazers have brought us to a point where even within that group, only a select few can stop a permanent and sustained decline of our club.

For anyone saying Ratcliffe, please read up on the guy and his Ineos company. They're hardly a paragon of virtue.

So, at the end, what do you propose that's realistic without a huge change in political thinking with regard to the industry?
Click to expand...

The OP asked me which I prefer. So yes, I prefer an american owner if the choice is between sportswashing a state and having a shit owner.

Do you actually believe a random fan off the internet to have the perfect solution to a new owner? (since you ask).

There's a reason this thread is created I believe - we have limited options. And yes, I'd take Ratcliffe any day of the week just because we're a british cultural institution and being british somehow would make you understand the history more (even if he's not a saint), but I don't think he's a suitor the Glazers actually consider, so I'd go with an american owner if held at gunpoint.
 
Rightnr said:
States already own key infrastructure in the UK and somehow them owning a football club is apparently a red line.

I just want someone who runs the club well at this point. Ideally with no Ronaldo bullshit like using him to get the WC to Saudi
Click to expand...
I don't actively support and follow key infrastructure in the UK - there is no emotional attachment there. Very odd comparison.
 
Tom Cato said:
I have gay friends. Good people. For that reason alone I cant really sit and watch the club be owned by a state owned consortim from the UAE knowing that the same people would imprison my friends if they would happen to be born and live here for being who they are. I understand that there is reform taking place in relation to things like freedom of the press and free speech, but that also does not take away from the by now well established fact that Mohammed bin Salman ordered Jamal Khashoggi executed.

Any time I see our fans say that they "dont really care" who owns the club, I invite you to listen to the audio of Kashoggi pleading before his voice left the world forever. Any type of ownership even remotely connected to bin Salman should repulse you.

American consortiums showed their true colors when they attempted to ruin the sport as we know it, turning the clubs into a franchise with lifetime rights rather than accomplishments in domestic leagues. They can speak the PR words as much as they want, we all know that they would jump at the chance to secure their investments with less risk than they currently do. Its a numbers game, not a passion.

The only type of ownership I would be remotely happy with is a fan owned, or UK based ownership through Ratcliffe. Anything else will make me disappointed.
Click to expand...
I'd much rather have US owners than fan owned, to be honest. Also, I don't see a difference between UK and US owners. They are businessmen, in most cases, and are using football clubs as vehicles to increase their wealth.

There are non-US owners of clubs who were part of the Super League clique. Fan owned clubs too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.