Not absolute power true, but still more power than you might think, the monarchy has a lot of power that it doesn't use
State sportswashing ownership or Profit-seeking ownership?
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
Mostly because if the monarchy tried to it would end up being removed quickly
I believe we will be taken over by a ME state. I'm just guessing the above two might be the best out of them...on the human rights factor, etc.
If I was able to vote against the U.K. cosying up to Saudi Arabia then I would - god knows I'll always vote against the Tories until the day I die (though I don't hold out much hope for Starmer's Labour). It stands to reason that a lot of the people that are against Saudi ownership will be left leaning and more liberal in their world view. I'd also like to think our club is above this absolute cesspit of a government, which would get into bed with absolute anybody without hesitation. But I know that private ownership typically doesn't discriminate and that the fit and proper ownership tests are meaningless in practice, which means that at some point there's a decent chance I'll either have to begrudgingly accept state ownership or effectively renounce my devotion to the club.
Last edited:
The levels of oppression and tyranny that occurred in 1980's Saudi Arabia, when relations with the USA were accelerated through Saudi Aramco's emergence, are incomparable versus modern day Saudi Arabia after the liberalisation that has taken place; back then women didn't even have national identities.
However, I don't want to defend Saudi Arabia's human rights record. The question I would however ask is - would Saudi Arabia's societal situation be better now had such relations with the USA not been fostered over previous decades?
“Sportwashing” is used for everything that isn’t a poor broke owner
It was because of their relationship with the US they were able to start a brutal war against Yemen that's led to millions at risk of starvation, so I'd say the answer is no. Women being able to drive doesn't exactly signify progress when Yemenis are being bombed and journalists are being murdered by a psychopath. Most middle eastern nations were far more progressive before the West decided to forcefully impose its footprint. Egypt in the 50s-70s and Iraq pre 2003 were the best example of it. Funny how those countries have turned to extremism and corruption now that they're considered allies with close ties.
Mostly but not all, I suspect if the King had said to Rishi, "feck off you ain't going to be PM, I ain't having a Tory" might have been popular!
Indeed, I'm just hoping there's a very rich individual or group of individuals out there who want to own a football that will buy us. Hopefully we don't get bought by a nation state, it's the worst of all options.
Has the thread descended into a “moral/ethical versus trophies” argument yet?
Didn't we have this under Ole?
I suspect moral/ethics goes out of the window when trophies arrive
Give me oil money any day
You’re right about everything you say but things aren’t so black and white are they? Maybe completely ignoring Saudi in the 80s would have led to a N.Korea or Iran style government.
Maybe some level of distrust and criticism from public is what has lead to recent reforms.
I don’t know it’s really complicated. In the eyes of the west though the Yemen stuff doesn’t matter. So long as a country moves towards a more western style of society they can bomb whoever.
Of course fans have a right to be against anything they want to be, including state ownership. But there isn't that big of a difference in the bolded. You (through your elected representatives) want an entity in your economy but not in your sports?
Now if you feel that the Sauds should have nothing to do with any aspect of British society then that's a consistent view of things.
Have you missed all the criticism the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have received over the last few years? Do you think another beheading of a journalist will be met with "wtf... Ah wait, they own Newcastle, they're all good now"
I think rich people buy clubs for the same reason they buy yachts. Dick waving contests. But I'd argue that their negative exposure has increased since they've found their way into football. So what's the sports washing actually doing?
No that was at the employee level, this is the board of governors level
I thought that's what happened when you became a western style of society
Yeah I was just being facetious tbh. It’s usually the 2 counter arguments predominant in these threads.
It would be clear that the Saudis would use club ownership as a sportwashing propaganda tool, much as CR7 is being used as one.
It probably would have been among the public but I imagine basically every single MP whether conservative or otherwise would basically immediately vote to end the monarchy
Let's be honest here, whoever buys us, with that kind of money being thrown around, we'll be someone's plaything regardless. It's definitely not an investment you'll ever expect to recoup in simple financial terms.
I'm actually shocked anyone thinks private investors will not run be in it for profit. At that fee the club is not some side project hobby, it's going to make up a huge chunk of any businessman's empire. Spending 4bn to get poorer isn't how they got 4bn in the first place.
Edit; Believe it or not, I didn't read the post above mine before posting this. I should just have quoted it because I couldn't disagree more
Edit; Believe it or not, I didn't read the post above mine before posting this. I should just have quoted it because I couldn't disagree more
Yeah but its an entirely different kettle of fish when ownership is by a nation state, because the club's history and tradition would be connected to the moral failings of the state's leader and his past indiscretions. Therefore if United were to be owned by the Saudis, it would be like using United as a marketing tool to say "Despite what you may have heard about the Khashoggi murder, MBS and Saudi aren't that bad after all".
Likewise if we were bought by a Russian oligarch, we would be in a similar predicament since oligarch money is ostensibly an extension of Putin deploying state money on his personal behalf.
It would therefore be far less problematic for a private individual to buy the club as there would be no attachment to geopolitical considerations.
Guys like Steve Ballmer, Larry Ellison, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, et al would be far preferable.
The key word is 'some'. If you are against state-ownership on the grounds of morality and ethics and you're consistent with that then fine.
The problem is some people are now having to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics because they've made bold statements about City's ownership, for example, and it now looks likely we might end-up owned by a similar regime.
The difference for me is in sporting terms. We were a big club anyway who don't need 'help', we just need to be allowed to compete under our own steam.
Tell that to musk
Both options are shite. And they are the only realistic options. We either get Glazer-like leeches, or gay-murdering cnuts.
Probably but I'm not actually sure it would matter, I'd have thought only a public vote could actually do it + the he could call up the generals and order them to shoot the feckers!
Last edited:
I know as was I TBH a little
First of all, no one has said this ever
Second, that is already being implied by the UK government. The Sauds aren't international pariahs like Iran or North Korea. They maintain military, political, economic and cultural ties with western nations, getting weapons they use to bomb Yemen into the stone age.
It's now a huge leap when a club joins in?
Big tech ownership just brings up a different kind of shit storm TBH
Yeah. Not geopolitical (directly), but on differing levels of the moral scale.
For example, imagine being owned by Peter Thiel, or Elon Musk. Try compartmentalizing that.
Not at all. The Glazers are/were poor in Billionaire terms. The likes of Steve Ballmer/Brin/Page et al., are each worth 100b or so. At that level owning a club is a vanity project that doesn’t require Glazer like leeching because they make their money elsewhere.
Well at least if it was Bezos he does have a rep for delivering
Governments partner with the Saudis because of oil and geopolitics. That too enables MBS to get away with murder and it certainly wouldn’t be a moral platform from which to advocate owning Man Utd.
In some ways a vanity project isn't that good either because such an owner could just get bored and pull the plug, that happens you're back to square one and potentially screwed
Yeah, but it would be infinitely preferable to barely billionaires who are constantly leeching off the club or some geopolitical tyrant like MBS.
But they won't pay the 6-7 bln. It's overpriced by 2 bln. No one likes to lose that kind of money.
It's as much to do with economics as well, we sell arms to Saudi and other such countries, that's jobs for people, also they invest in worthwhile projects in the UK, look at what the Abu Dhabi lot have invested in the Manchester area
It isn't just about "sports washing" - they're diversifying investment so they don't have all their eggs in one basket when the oil and gas run out
No question but whichever way it goes there'll be a shit storm of some kind that's for sure
It's not a moral platform. Their partnerships with governments for whatever reasons also eliminates the need for them to "launder their reputation"... They are already in the system
Image laundering would make sense if North Korea wanted to buy Leicester for example