State sportswashing ownership or Profit-seeking ownership?

[Señor Sloppy]

I work for a company that sells military material en masse to the Middle East, so I've already thought long and hard about this subject.

The key thing I believe is that increased economic, political and cultural ties between the West and developing countries such as these generally progress in correlation with improved human rights standards there. For example, I'd say we've seen far more positive change over recent decades from the likes of Qatar - due to the increased social spotlight/goodwill/leverage/etc. we have from engagement with them - than we have from the likes of North Korea or Iran. It's also important to note that these countries are of huge global strategic importance; ostracising them would only push them further towards the influence orbits of less progressive superpowers such as China, which is of no benefit to us at all.

Given that I don't believe increased co-operation between ourselves and these countries has a negative impact on the human rights situations there, my conscience is clear for us to continue reaping the substantial benefits that do result from these relationships, such as the inward investment which keeps our economy (maybe including Manchester United) ticking and the intelligence sharing that keeps us safe.

 

[Dan_F]

We’re 1 point off City, coming off the back of a horrendous decade of mis-management. We don’t *need* oil money to compete. We do need a far better structure and competence at boardroom level.

How much have we spent financing their loans and dividends? I’d say almost enough to build a new stadium, and that’s before considering how much we wasted on transfers (in and out), sacking managers/staff, not getting into the Champions League.

Id take our chances with a non state sponsored owner every single time.

 

[Kaos]

I work for a company that sells military material en masse to the Middle East, so I've already thought long and hard about this subject.

The key thing I believe is that increased economic, political and cultural ties between the West and developing countries such as these generally progress in correlation with improved human rights standards there. For example, I'd say we've seen far more positive change over recent decades from the likes of Qatar - due to the increased social spotlight/goodwill/leverage/etc. we have from engagement with them - than we have from the likes of North Korea or Iran. It's also important to note that these countries are of huge global strategic importance; ostracising them would only push them further towards the influence orbits of less progressive superpowers such as China, which is of no benefit to us at all.

Given that I don't believe increased co-operation between ourselves and these countries has a negative impact on the human rights situations there, my conscience is clear for us to continue reaping the substantial benefits that do result from these relationships, such as the inward investment which keeps our economy (maybe including Manchester United) ticking and the intelligence sharing that keeps us safe.

Saudi Arabia has had very close ties to the US for decades now. Hasn't stopped them from dismembering journalists or funding extremist cells. The fact is the major Western nations don't care for human rights abuses was much as they'd like you to believe, rather they pick and choose what to be outraged over depending on regional interests. Its why they virtue signal over likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela while turning a blind eye to the crimes and vehement abuses from the likes of Saudi, Israel and anti-communist dictators in South America.

 

[Belisarius]

I don't think they have the money to do it. But, how would people feel about being bought by a sports management company like Red Bull?

 

[Laurencio]

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.

This is actually a good point. Our current owners couldn't give a toss about our opinions and fan sentiment. A sportwashing project would want to avoid negative fan-reactions, and would be very cogniscent about how fans perceive them. Protests would probably actually make a difference.

 

[Kaos]

I don't think they have the money to do it. But, how would people feel about being bought by a sports management company like Red Bull?

No thanks. Don't want us to be RB Manchester playing at the Trafford Red Bull Arena.

Thankfully we don't fit their business model anyway. They prefer to buy small clubs and ascend them, often nurturing talents to sell them for a huge profit.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I work for a company that sells military material en masse to the Middle East, so I've already thought long and hard about this subject.

The key thing I believe is that increased economic, political and cultural ties between the West and developing countries such as these generally progress in correlation with improved human rights standards there. For example, I'd say we've seen far more positive change over recent decades from the likes of Qatar - due to the increased social spotlight/goodwill/leverage/etc. we have from engagement with them - than we have from the likes of North Korea or Iran. It's also important to note that these countries are of huge global strategic importance; ostracising them would only push them further towards the influence orbits of less progressive superpowers such as China, which is of no benefit to us at all.

Given that I don't believe increased co-operation between ourselves and these countries has a negative impact on the human rights situations there, my conscience is clear for us to continue reaping the substantial benefits that do result from these relationships, such as the inward investment which keeps our economy (maybe including Manchester United) ticking and the intelligence sharing that keeps us safe.

Yeah I'm sure they are like schoolchildren, just need proper Western guidance and they'll turn good

 

[JustinC00]

We don’t *need* oil money to compete.

We kind of do though. They are the only ones that can buy the club, clear the massive debt and pay for improvements to the stadium and facilities. Glazers have made us cash poor. We are still in for 4 trophies right now with massive fixture congestion and we can't bolster the squad with a couple of signings because we are cash poor from the Glazers bleeding us dry and they refuse to put money they profited from the club back in to help.

 

[Rightnr]

I don't actively support and follow key infrastructure in the UK - there is no emotional attachment there. Very odd comparison.

I'm sure you'll feel the same way if they started mixing drinking and waste water.

If you're fine with foreign state ownership of water or electricity facilities, then entertainment is nothing in comparison.

 

[V.O.]

We’re 1 point off City, coming off the back of a horrendous decade of mis-management. We don’t *need* oil money to compete. We do need a far better structure and competently at boardroom level.

How much have we spent financing their loans and dividends? I’d say almost enough to build a new stadium, and that’s before considering how much we wasted on transfers (in and out), sacking managers/staff, not getting into the Champions League.

Id take our chances with a non state sponsored owner every single time.

This. We're the biggest club in the richest league in the world. We have no need of an oil state sugar daddy to compete. What both us and Arsenal are doing this year proves that.

We just need owners who use the money we make sensibly, rather than a big chunk of it going on Glazer debt and most of the rest being pissed up the wall.

 

[Dan_F]

We kind of do though. They are the only ones that can buy the club, clear the massive debt and pay for improvements to the stadium and facilities. Glazers have made us cash poor. We are still in for 4 trophies right now with massive fixture congestion and we can't bolster the squad with a couple of signings because we are cash poor from the Glazers bleeding us dry and they refuse to put money they profited from the club back in to help.

Being poorly run has made us cash poor. We’ve made no significant money back on transfers, missed out on the champions league multiple times and so much more.

All we need is owners that won’t put the debt onto the club. There are other ways of financing stadium upgrades without oil money, see Madrid and Barca. Long term loans with very low interest. I’d much rather it be called Spotify Old Trafford than be a state owned club.

 

[Kaos]

Being poorly run has made us cash poor. We’ve made no significant money back on transfers, missed out on the champions league multiple times and so much more.

All we need is owners that won’t put the debt onto the club. There are other ways of financing stadium upgrades without oil money, see Madrid and Barca. Long term loans with very low interest. I’d much rather it be called Spotify Old Trafford than be a state owned club.

Barcelona aren't exactly a model to aspire to. They're a financial mess, struggling to even register their new signings because of the restraints they've inflicted on themselves. Madrid are essentially getting bailed out by the Spanish government.

And no feck renaming our stadium, would rather we have rich owners who allow the club to honour its traditions.

 

[JeffFromHK]

In the interest of Man Utd, I would pick dirty oil money.
All oil clubs are quite well run tbh (Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Newcastle). I always got a feeling that being in an 'oil club' can buff its own players (seeing how medicore Newcastle players turned into great players when Saudi bought the club)
And all clubs with profiteering US owners are hated by their own fanbase (Glazer, FSG say hello)

 

[Dan_F]

Barcelona aren't exactly a model to aspire to. They're a financial mess, struggling to even register their new signings because of the restraints they've inflicted on themselves. Madrid are essentially getting bailed out by the Spanish government.

And no feck renaming our stadium, would rather we have rich owners who allow the club to honour its traditions.

The stadium refurb is separate to their other mess. In fact, them being able to do that to the stadium while having that debt just shows how it can be done from an accounting point of view. Unless JP Morgan are the Spanish government, I’m not sure what they have to do with the development of their Stadium. I don’t care about stuff that happened 20 years ago, we weren’t even owned by the Glazers at that point.

You would rather have Saudi owners than renaming the stadium? Interesting priorities to have principles on.

 

[Kaos]

The stadium refurb is separate to their other mess. In fact, them being able to do that to the stadium while having that debt just shows how it can be done from an accounting point of view. Unless JP Morgan are the Spanish government, I’m not sure what they have to do with the development of their Stadium. I don’t care about stuff that happened 20 years ago, we weren’t even owned by the Glazers at that point.

You would rather have Saudi owners than renaming the stadium? Interesting priorities to have principles on.

I don't want Saudi owners. Though I'd take Dubai over some useless American consortium.

The mistake people make is grouping state owners together like they're one uniform category. Yes its not ideal, but believe it or not there still exists a difference between an emirate like Dubai over a feudalistic nation like Saudi Arabia who are the absolute worst of the bunch.

Yes you could argue I'm doing the same in generalising US owners, but looking at their track record, worst case you get the Glazers, best case you get some idiot like Boehly who will spend like a spoiled kid with FOMO playing football manager. I'd rather take my chances with Dubai or Qataris.

 

[redcucumber]

I'm sure you'll feel the same way if they started mixing drinking and waste water.

If you're fine with foreign state ownership of water or electricity facilities, then entertainment is nothing in comparison.

Ey? Mixing drinking water and sewage? Obviously I'd care, that's still got absolutely nothing to do with not actively supporting infrastructure on a day-to-day basis. The majority of the water industry in the U.K. is already owned by foreign investment.

The comparison of foreign ownership of infrastructure in a country to ownership of a football club is a complete false equivalence.

 

[Telsim]

I will stop watching football the day another American ownership is announced. I'm not going through another 15 years of Glazer. I don't have it in me.

 

[Sviken]

Both can be effective. It depends on how competent the leadership is. I guess with a state sportwashing project you can throw endless money at the problem though.

 

[JustinC00]

see Madrid and Barca

Terrible examples. Especially Barcelona. How many "levers" did they have to pull this summer to get guys registered? Not to mention you got guys like De Jong who they were predatory with because it's his "dream club" so they've used that to not pay him.
Here is some examples of the "levers" they had to pull

- Sold a 25% stake in their LaLiga TV rights, in a 25-year-deal, to US private equity group Sixth Street,
- The sale of 49.9% of BLM ( BLM is the company that manages the club’s official merchandise)
-

 

[Dan_F]

Terrible examples. Especially Barcelona. How many "levers" did they have to pull this summer to get guys registered? Not to mention you got guys like De Jong who they were predatory with because it's his "dream club" so they've used that to not pay him.
Here is some examples of the "levers" they had to pull

- Sold a 25% stake in their LaLiga TV rights, in a 25-year-deal, to US private equity group Sixth Street,
- The sale of 49.9% of BLM ( BLM is the company that manages the club’s official merchandise)
-

None of that is of any relevance to my point about the stadium. The stadium refurb has been financed through a long term (35 year) low interest, loan. It doesn’t effect FFP. No levers we’re used to finance it. Doesn’t effect player registration.

Clearly I’m not suggesting we go ahead and get ourselves into an immediate 1.3 billion pound hole, which you seem to be confusing it with.

 

[Belisarius]

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

I know I'll get slammed on here for saying it. But, I think the best outcome may be that the Glazers keep the club but get a minority outside investment sufficient to fund the stadium improvements. It's taken them far too long but they seem to finally be learning from their earlier mistakes, if we get someone new in they may make the same mistakes all over again.

As opposed to a Boehly at Chelsea, the Glazers have always been hands-off type owners. That worked well when the football side of the club was being run by Gill and Ferguson. It has been terrible for the past decade under Woodward. They were clearly a bit tight with funds during the Gill/Ferguson era, but I think there has been lots of money spent during Woodword's tenure. It has just been wasted.

- They have (FINALLY) rid themselves of Woodward. I'm not certain of the competence of the Arnold / Murtough combination but it seems an upgrade on Woodward that's for sure.
- They have hired an intelligent, modern manager who still has something to prove, rather than managers on the decline living off their reputations or, well I don't like to badmouth Ole because I love the man, but you all know what I mean.
- They began investing more in the youth set-up a few years back and we seem to be beginning to reap the rewards of that with some exciting youth prospects around the first team (Garnacho in particular, but also a few others who seem close).
- They have recognized the stadium needs investment and are well into the planning process. They probably don't have the money for this themselves but that's where a minority investment could help.
- It's hard to say for certain but they seem to be trying to get some control over our bloated wage structure which makes it so hard to unload failed players (the current salary negotiations with De Gea insisting he take a pay-cut if he wants to stay, we're rid of Ronaldo and Cavani, there was a thread on here a few days ago saying they were trying to cap salaries around 200k).
- It's early to say for certain but the recruitment this summer seems to have improved although certainly still less than perfect. (overpaid for Anthony because we delayed so long in going for him, I love Casemiro but we may also have overpaid for him if he declines as rapidly as Matic did but at the moment it's looking a great signing as are Martinez, Malacia and Eriksen).

If feels like we've finally turned a corner and are improving on all fronts in a sustainable fashion. I would really hate to have a new owner come in and kick the table over and start all over again.

 

[Simbo]

I know I'll get slammed on here for saying it. But, I think the best outcome may be that the Glazers keep the club but get a minority outside investment sufficient to fund the stadium improvements. It's taken them far too long but they seem to finally be learning from their earlier mistakes, if we get someone new in they may make the same mistakes all over again.

As opposed to a Boehly at Chelsea, the Glazers have always been hands-off type owners. That worked well when the football side of the club was being run by Gill and Ferguson. It has been terrible for the past decade under Woodward. They were clearly a bit tight with funds during the Gill/Ferguson era, but I think there has been lots of money spent during Woodword's tenure. It has just been wasted.

- They have (FINALLY) rid themselves of Woodward. I'm not certain of the competence of the Arnold / Murtough combination but it seems an upgrade on Woodward that's for sure.
- They have hired an intelligent, modern manager who still has something to prove, rather than managers on the decline living off their reputations or, well I don't like to badmouth Ole because I love the man, but you all know what I mean.
- They began investing more in the youth set-up a few years back and we seem to be beginning to reap the rewards of that with some exciting youth prospects around the first team (Garnacho in particular, but also a few others who seem close).
- They have recognized the stadium needs investment and are well into the planning process. They probably don't have the money for this themselves but that's where a minority investment could help.
- It's hard to say for certain but they seem to be trying to get some control over our bloated wage structure which makes it so hard to unload failed players (the current salary negotiations with De Gea insisting he take a pay-cut if he wants to stay, we're rid of Ronaldo and Cavani, there was a thread on here a few days ago saying they were trying to cap salaries around 200k).
- It's early to say for certain but the recruitment this summer seems to have improved although certainly still less than perfect. (overpaid for Anthony because we delayed so long in going for him, I love Casemiro but we may also have overpaid for him if he declines as rapidly as Matic did but at the moment it's looking a great signing as are Martinez, Malacia and Eriksen).

If feels like we've finally turned a corner and are improving on all fronts in a sustainable fashion. I would really hate to have a new owner come in and kick the table over and start all over again.

I'll join you in the slammer, sensible points.

For me, anything beats Oil state ownership, if we're the last in the prem to succumb to it then I'll be a proud fan. We may have bought a trophy or two in our time, but our money has always been of our own making.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

I know I'll get slammed on here for saying it. But, I think the best outcome may be that the Glazers keep the club but get a minority outside investment sufficient to fund the stadium improvements. It's taken them far too long but they seem to finally be learning from their earlier mistakes, if we get someone new in they may make the same mistakes all over again.

As opposed to a Boehly at Chelsea, the Glazers have always been hands-off type owners. That worked well when the football side of the club was being run by Gill and Ferguson. It has been terrible for the past decade under Woodward. They were clearly a bit tight with funds during the Gill/Ferguson era, but I think there has been lots of money spent during Woodword's tenure. It has just been wasted.

- They have (FINALLY) rid themselves of Woodward. I'm not certain of the competence of the Arnold / Murtough combination but it seems an upgrade on Woodward that's for sure.
- They have hired an intelligent, modern manager who still has something to prove, rather than managers on the decline living off their reputations or, well I don't like to badmouth Ole because I love the man, but you all know what I mean.
- They began investing more in the youth set-up a few years back and we seem to be beginning to reap the rewards of that with some exciting youth prospects around the first team (Garnacho in particular, but also a few others who seem close).
- They have recognized the stadium needs investment and are well into the planning process. They probably don't have the money for this themselves but that's where a minority investment could help.
- It's hard to say for certain but they seem to be trying to get some control over our bloated wage structure which makes it so hard to unload failed players (the current salary negotiations with De Gea insisting he take a pay-cut if he wants to stay, we're rid of Ronaldo and Cavani, there was a thread on here a few days ago saying they were trying to cap salaries around 200k).
- It's early to say for certain but the recruitment this summer seems to have improved although certainly still less than perfect. (overpaid for Anthony because we delayed so long in going for him, I love Casemiro but we may also have overpaid for him if he declines as rapidly as Matic did but at the moment it's looking a great signing as are Martinez, Malacia and Eriksen).

If feels like we've finally turned a corner and are improving on all fronts in a sustainable fashion. I would really hate to have a new owner come in and kick the table over and start all over again.

I mean, I don't agree. But I respect what you're saying, and I understand the sentiment that we don't want to sell to an owner similar to the Glazers who sets us back yet again.

I think though it's highly unlikely. Glazers are effectively selling because they don't want to invest in the club at a time when it needs urgent investment. A new owner would effectively be the ones to pick that up.

Glazers have not put a penny into United, they had nothing to do with paying or planning for the Quads (the last major stadium development) and are the only top flight owners who take dividends from their club.

The longer the Glazers stick around, the more the money dries up and the more United get left behind their rivals on and off the pitch. There is really no going back, a sale is vital. The last decade will be paradise compared to the next 10 years if they stay

 

[adexkola]

Ey? Mixing drinking water and sewage? Obviously I'd care, that's still got absolutely nothing to do with not actively supporting infrastructure on a day-to-day basis. The majority of the water industry in the U.K. is already owned by foreign investment.

The comparison of foreign ownership of infrastructure in a country to ownership of a football club is a complete false equivalence.

It's not.

Your democratic government has completely validated the existence and operation of these foreign entities in every facet of your economy and society. Ownership of sports is not a giant leap. Neither is it an attempt to "launder reputations"... Such entities already have their way in your country, they don't need to look good by buying a club.

 

[adexkola]

As long as the majority of football fans don't realize the underlying problem (vast wealth disparity between the top clubs and rest of football, whether "earned" or "gifted"), it doesn't matter who owns a club, outside of moral grandstands on football forums.

So given the option, I think every club should be owned by a "state". Probably the closest you'll get to a level playing field.

Obviously, you'd hate this as a big club fan. For obvious reasons.

 

[Raoul]

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

Good thread. And worthy of its own debate outside the broader ownership discussions.

My view is no country should own a club, either directly or indirectly via its proxies (such as City and PSG)

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I know I'll get slammed on here for saying it. But, I think the best outcome may be that the Glazers keep the club but get a minority outside investment sufficient to fund the stadium improvements. It's taken them far too long but they seem to finally be learning from their earlier mistakes, if we get someone new in they may make the same mistakes all over again.

As opposed to a Boehly at Chelsea, the Glazers have always been hands-off type owners. That worked well when the football side of the club was being run by Gill and Ferguson. It has been terrible for the past decade under Woodward. They were clearly a bit tight with funds during the Gill/Ferguson era, but I think there has been lots of money spent during Woodword's tenure. It has just been wasted.

- They have (FINALLY) rid themselves of Woodward. I'm not certain of the competence of the Arnold / Murtough combination but it seems an upgrade on Woodward that's for sure.
- They have hired an intelligent, modern manager who still has something to prove, rather than managers on the decline living off their reputations or, well I don't like to badmouth Ole because I love the man, but you all know what I mean.
- They began investing more in the youth set-up a few years back and we seem to be beginning to reap the rewards of that with some exciting youth prospects around the first team (Garnacho in particular, but also a few others who seem close).
- They have recognized the stadium needs investment and are well into the planning process. They probably don't have the money for this themselves but that's where a minority investment could help.
- It's hard to say for certain but they seem to be trying to get some control over our bloated wage structure which makes it so hard to unload failed players (the current salary negotiations with De Gea insisting he take a pay-cut if he wants to stay, we're rid of Ronaldo and Cavani, there was a thread on here a few days ago saying they were trying to cap salaries around 200k).
- It's early to say for certain but the recruitment this summer seems to have improved although certainly still less than perfect. (overpaid for Anthony because we delayed so long in going for him, I love Casemiro but we may also have overpaid for him if he declines as rapidly as Matic did but at the moment it's looking a great signing as are Martinez, Malacia and Eriksen).

If feels like we've finally turned a corner and are improving on all fronts in a sustainable fashion. I would really hate to have a new owner come in and kick the table over and start all over again.

Good post.

I’d prefer a new owner that doesn’t saddle the club in debt mind, and I don’t see how that could be achievable with outside investment at the same time as huge spending on infrastructure.

But Jeysus, better that than State ownership for me. Our resurgence means something, as did Liverpool’s and as does Arsenal currently. If we have a bottomless pit then it’ll be like Citeh, hollow and meaningless, just the result of having silly sums of money to spunk around.

 

[red thru&thru]

What are the recent human rights records for Dubai and Kuwait?

 

[jm99]

Saudi Arabia has had very close ties to the US for decades now. Hasn't stopped them from dismembering journalists or funding extremist cells. The fact is the major Western nations don't care for human rights abuses was much as they'd like you to believe, rather they pick and choose what to be outraged over depending on regional interests. Its why they virtue signal over likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela while turning a blind eye to the crimes and vehement abuses from the likes of Saudi, Israel and anti-communist dictators in South America.

That's true but women can now drive and go out by themselves. There is definitely some modernisation but of course it'll take time, it's still a country with a monarchy thats deeply intertwined with religion, when our country was still like that it took hundreds of years to progress to now. I mean it's only 50 years since homosexuality was illegal in the UK, clearly things are progressing with MBS but he's still essentially a dictators so you're going to have a lot of issues, but you'd be mistaken if you think there's been no progress

 

[Kaos]

That's true but women can now drive and go out by themselves. There is definitely some modernisation but of course it'll take time, it's still a country with a monarchy thats deeply intertwined with religion, when our country was still like that it took hundreds of years to progress to now. I mean it's only 50 years since homosexuality was illegal in the UK, clearly things are progressing with MBS but he's still essentially a dictators so you're going to have a lot of issues, but you'd be mistaken if you think there's been no progress

The funny thing is Iran looks like a secular haven when compared to Saudi Arabia, yet Iran is seen as the pariah state. The 'progress' made by Saudi is nothing more than a red herring. It was MBS who launched the devastating war against Yemen that's doomed millions of people, its him who brutally murdered the WP journalist. The US and other allies did close to nothing to reel that in. The only thing that would accelerate any sort of change there is push for tourism which modernised things in the case of Dubai.

 

[jm99]

The funny thing is Iran looks like a secular haven when compared to Saudi Arabia, yet Iran is seen as the pariah state. The 'progress' made by Saudi is nothing more than a red herring. It was MBS who launched the devastating war against Yemen that's doomed millions of people, its him who brutally murdered the WP journalist. The US and other allies did close to nothing to reel that in. The only thing that would accelerate any sort of change there is push for tourism which modernised things in the case of Dubai.

Well yeah I don't think the hypocrisy of western states when it comes to who our allies are and that it's often based on who has strategic value or who we sell weapons to. But at the same time the improvement in rights for women clearly is a big deal, yes compared to other countries Saudi Arabia is clearly not some progressive paradise, but compared to themselves previously there has been progress and will continue to be, not for some moral reason, but because the world will shift away from oil and they know there needs to be changes if they don't want to be left behind when that happens

 

[adexkola]

This is actually a good point. Our current owners couldn't give a toss about our opinions and fan sentiment. A sportwashing project would want to avoid negative fan-reactions, and would be very cogniscent about how fans perceive them. Protests would probably actually make a difference.

I don't think they give a shit about what some fans think. They own a club.

 

[redcucumber]

It's not.

Your democratic government has completely validated the existence and operation of these foreign entities in every facet of your economy and society. Ownership of sports is not a giant leap. Neither is it an attempt to "launder reputations"... Such entities already have their way in your country, they don't need to look good by buying a club.

Have you misunderstood the conversation? Obviously Middle Eastern states can own sports clubs, that was the never the issue. The issue was whether or not fans of a club have a right to be opposed to state ownership of their club, when considering the fact that states already have large stakes in other arms of the economy, such as infrastructure. It's completely bogus - obviously they can be against it and there is absolutely a very big difference between individual attitudes towards their nation's economic policy and the ownership of their club. It's nothing to do with legality.

I disagree that sports washing isn't a thing. It's precisely because they do things like buy football clubs and host major sporting events that they can continue to insulate themselves against political criticism. Saudi Arabia is undergoing a very expensive marketing campaign through targeted investment to try and reshape the image of the country in the eyes of the world. Having large stakes in water supply companies is absolutely nothing compared to the goodwill generated through investing in Newcastle and its community, hosting World Cups and being home to Cristiano Ronaldo. It's an obvious attempt to drive soft power and influence. Unless you believe they are genuinely lifelong fans of the toon?

 

[Red in STL]

it's still a country with a monarchy thats deeply intertwined with religion, when our country was still like that it took hundreds of years to progress to now.

Hmmm - the UK still a country with a monarchy deeply intertwined with relgion

 

[Amarsdd]

I will stop watching football the day another American ownership is announced. I'm not going through another 15 years of Glazer. I don't have it in me.

I don't know how you are meaning it, so take no offense but it sorta sounds a bit like glory hunting.

 

[Edwards6]

Don't think we need someone like City or Newcastle owners that's going to pump loads of there own money in, just clear the debt and let us spend the money we make on the club instead of paying off loans

 

[RedDevil@84]

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.

I never understood why these kind of conditions apply only to owning a football club. The Saudis are into hundreds of businesses in most countries. I haven't seen any significant public outrage or any demand from the public that avoiding Saudis should be a key election agenda. People are used to looking the other way when electing govt that actively trade and sell arms to Saudis. I am not sure why fans of a club shouldn't focus on investments into the club rather than moral quality of their owners.

It is a different thing if the new owners use the club to make political statements or run campaigns at the club justifying executions and mass murders.Then the club actively becomes part of the state propaganda. Else it is just a bunch of owners pumping money or using the club to market their businesses.

 

[Infra-red]

What are the recent human rights records for Dubai and Kuwait?

Very poor, with multiple human rights violations, although neither of them rank among the worst countries/territories in their region.

Kuwait
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Kuwait
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/kuwait/report-kuwait/
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/kuwait

Dubai/UAE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Dubai
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location...ed-arab-emirates/report-united-arab-emirates/
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/united-arab-emirates

 

[jm99]

Hmmm - the UK still a country with a monarchy deeply intertwined with relgion

A constitutional monarchy, not one where the monarch has absolute power

 

[Amarsdd]

I never understood why these kind of conditions apply only to owning a football club. The Saudis are into hundreds of businesses in most countries.

I think its because you have an emotional connection with the club, something you grew up with loving and means a lot to you. I don't think we can say that about the other businesses, so you don't "care".