You’re the only person who’s mentioned Ratcliffe. It’s totally irrelevant deflection. So again, what has that got to do with City spending several years with a man who was so incompetent that he made Woodward seem bearable and PSG still being an utter mess 11 years into Middle Eastern money?
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
If you think you'd be any different growing up in those levels of deprivation then you're completely deluded. And that's then only difference between you and them.
Probably fine with it, but it depends how they run us doesn't it.
If we're PSG or early Chelsea/City then it's going to feel a bit hollow. If they allow us to spend the money we actually make, while building a new stadium, new facilities etc then great.
If we're PSG or early Chelsea/City then it's going to feel a bit hollow. If they allow us to spend the money we actually make, while building a new stadium, new facilities etc then great.
Garry Cook at City was the person who sold the idea of buying Man City to Abu Dhabi. And he was then put in charge by the Arab owners in 2008 after they'd completed the takeover. And he made a lot of mistakes, but realised that he needed help and turned to a former colleague/friend who was working at Nike at the time to help him put the structural foundations in place at the club in 2009. And that person was Brian Marwood, who had never worked in a similar role before, a role which some call the DoF or Sporting director etc.
So it was Cook and Marwood who Abu Dhabi had put in charge of the running of the club and Marwood oversaw their title win in 2012, before the two chaps from Barcelona even arrived at the club. The CEO, Soriano was fired by Barcelona and joined the club after he had overseen the demise of Catalan Airlines who he was brought in to save.
The commentator turned DoF, Txiki, joined a Man City with a fully functioning football department and structural processes that were already in place, which were put in place by Marwood who had taken a step back from a more demanding role.
And contrary to what alot of you believe about a DoF, he doesn't identify transfer targets but rather the identification process is left to the scouting department, which is normally led by a head of recruitment. And City's head of recruitment is Gary Worthington who is ex United, and he was brought to the club by Brian Marwood in 2010. A DoF is basically a football administrator and should create and then empower networks/departments on the football side of the club. The likes of Marwood, Txiki or even Rangnick didn't identify players to sign but rather put people in charge who did in a scouting capacity. For example at Hoffenheim, Christian Mockel was the one who identified the talent to sign and not the football administrator, which was Rangnick.
The best in class on the football side of the club have to be your lead and head scouts. And if you have those in place, and a football administrator overseeing it all, then it's a very simple process. And hence why clubs hire DoFs from within but hire the best in class scouts externally.
So it was Cook and Marwood who Abu Dhabi had put in charge of the running of the club and Marwood oversaw their title win in 2012, before the two chaps from Barcelona even arrived at the club. The CEO, Soriano was fired by Barcelona and joined the club after he had overseen the demise of Catalan Airlines who he was brought in to save.
The commentator turned DoF, Txiki, joined a Man City with a fully functioning football department and structural processes that were already in place, which were put in place by Marwood who had taken a step back from a more demanding role.
And contrary to what alot of you believe about a DoF, he doesn't identify transfer targets but rather the identification process is left to the scouting department, which is normally led by a head of recruitment. And City's head of recruitment is Gary Worthington who is ex United, and he was brought to the club by Brian Marwood in 2010. A DoF is basically a football administrator and should create and then empower networks/departments on the football side of the club. The likes of Marwood, Txiki or even Rangnick didn't identify players to sign but rather put people in charge who did in a scouting capacity. For example at Hoffenheim, Christian Mockel was the one who identified the talent to sign and not the football administrator, which was Rangnick.
The best in class on the football side of the club have to be your lead and head scouts. And if you have those in place, and a football administrator overseeing it all, then it's a very simple process. And hence why clubs hire DoFs from within but hire the best in class scouts externally.
Absolutely not.
City got rid of Cook.
3/4 years is a long time to put up with somebody like him when you only allow best in class, was my point if you read back that discussion.
Cook also walked for what it’s worth, following the Nedum Onouha scandal.
People saying they don’t want the Saudis to own us for XYZ but turn a blind eye when it comes to the UK selling arms to them. Personally I think all politics should be kept out of football but it’s the media and the agenda that’s pushing all this more so now the WC has started.
Leaving aside the moral aspect, I'd want Manchester United run as a self-sufficient enterprise that uses its own money to sustain itself.
I'd honestly would hate it if we become a club entity dependant on its owners, seeing bullshit sponsorship deals to hide the fact we were no longer independently financially viable
I'd honestly would hate it if we become a club entity dependant on its owners, seeing bullshit sponsorship deals to hide the fact we were no longer independently financially viable
But they don’t though. Venture into the current events forum, this is criticised all the time.
The reality is you can't compete with it. You either accept your inferior position and settle there or you join in. Neither side is wrong, as long as they don't try accusing the other of anything.
I think we just might have to get used to it. I just want someone who would put monies back into the club. Ratcliffe would be fine.
This is irrelevant. The UK doesn't own Man Utd. So much whataboutery and illogical arguments in this thread.
Whataboutism really is an art.
So, assuming you're not remarkably stupid, you're against state ownership of football clubs then. Good stuff.
You could have just said that without all the whataboutery though.
Source.
You keep making this unsubstantiated arguments, who has said they're okay with selling arms to SA? You're being pathologically disingenuous.
It's hardly Afghanistan
Your ignorance is as profound as your prejudice.It's hardly Afghanistan
Well i can't speak as a United fan (because i'm not one) but i wouldnt want it at my club and would abandon them immediately if it were to happen.
If i wanted some fantasy football version of reality I would just play FIFA or PES manager mode.
If i wanted some fantasy football version of reality I would just play FIFA or PES manager mode.
Huh? The UK government allows arms sales to the Saudis so I shouldn't mind the Saudi's owning United? Peak whataboutism not to mention a non sequitur.
Nope
Unfortunately, they still rule.over us, so yea, same with the Qataris.
Imagine how people living under Monarchies feel. Unfortunate.
And the point of the thread is not about comparing the rulers of different countries. It's about whether or not you'd be happy with state ownership. I'm not sure anyone against an Arab state owning Man Utd would be happy with the UK owning United either so your point is moot.
Slight tangent here. Beckham has been mooted as the head of a consortium.
Would that include the £150 million he’s just taken off Qatar?
Not sure I’d be happy with that either. He’s all shades of wrong for taking that gig.
Would that include the £150 million he’s just taken off Qatar?
Not sure I’d be happy with that either. He’s all shades of wrong for taking that gig.
And nobody hear is saying that the Qatari people should shut up and not complain about any other government because their own isn't great. Although I suspect you might adopt that stance.
Huh? Your just making up stuff I never said.
Well I'm living under one right now. And I wouldn't be happy if King Charles or the UK government tried to buy the club. What was your point?
Yeah it's my preferred choice
I want my team to do well and they're the best option. It's as simple as that for me.
I want my team to do well and they're the best option. It's as simple as that for me.
I am neutral on this. Do I have a choice or a say who own Man Utd? Nope. Then, it doesn't matter who I prefer. I will continue to support Man Utd for a simple fact that I can't support any other club.
BTW, Glazers are terrible owners exploiting the clubs, running the clubs to the ground and the fans have zero says all these years.
BTW, Glazers are terrible owners exploiting the clubs, running the clubs to the ground and the fans have zero says all these years.
So what are you saying?
The other possible interpretation is that you don't care who owns United because you think politics amd sport should be separate. But then why does the UK government policy towards the Saudis even get mentioned?
Last edited:
I think he’s saying that people are against, say Saudi or Qatar, owning us because they are Muslim countries.
It’s mentioned because to many hypocrites are pointing fingers but don’t stop and think the UK in recent years (and in the long history) have killed innocent people directly and indirectly.
Do you have any evidence that the same people aren’t the ones complaining about both? Or does that just not suit your bullshit narrative?
How do you know they don't think about it and how is it relevant to a discussion about the owners of Man Utd?
The UK govt aren't rumoured to be taking over Man Utd.
So if you support United you support the UK government's defence and foreign policies? I feel more people should be made aware of this.
Why do you keep making statements that only make sense based on an assumption that everyone who lives in a state agrees with the actions of the state? You know that's not true, it's extremely disingenuous.
Yeah, I'm fine with it. Unfortunate reality of the sport at this point. Would much rather a state funded group buy United than a private equity consortium.
If it were states like USA, China, Russia, UK or India, I may feel a bit inconvenienced.
Imagine seeing the likes of Biden (or worse Trump), Xi, Putin, Sunak or Modi in the stands. Yuck!!!
Imagine seeing the likes of Biden (or worse Trump), Xi, Putin, Sunak or Modi in the stands. Yuck!!!
Interesting straw man argument and/or you don't know the definition of the term hypocrite.
A United fan not wanting Saudi owners might be considered a hypocrite if they personally were for selling arms to the Saudi (or whatever other issue) but it is logically falacious and/or disingeneous to call people hypocrites based on something someone else or their government do/say/stand for.
In that case I'm not allowed to complain about Brexit because the government is for it. Which is obviously ludicrous.
- Status