Sorry, I read the original post as meaning the day to day/United-only protest against the Glazers, separate from the super League revolt.
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I read the original post as meaning the day to day/United-only protest against the Glazers, separate from the super League revolt.
Insulting another member
Racist! hahaha. Good wind up. Perhaps if you'd lived there, had 5 people try to kill you, had your front door kicked in several times, lived on a street where kids throw the bins out into the roads, there's razor wire on the gates and broken glass on all the walls, you'd have a different opinion. Moron.
Whatever is necessary for the club to succeed.
Surely there's a line for you somewhere?
I wrote it before and will write it again. No to any state ownership at Manchester United Football Club.
I'd wager the ideal situation for the vast majority of reds is a decent owner who cares for the club and lets United be self-sufficient, coupled with state-backed owners being strictly banned and city/Newcastle and PSG's owners all being forced to sell Abramovic style.
That's not going to happen. And if United don't get state-backed owners and unlimited funds, then Liverpool will, or if not them, Arsenal or Spurs or whoever when they get put on the market.
Unfortunately it's part of the game now. So it may as well be a club profiting from it who deserves to be. Not PSG or city who'd boast the likes of Ayew and Danny Ings as their best players without their owners.
That's not going to happen. And if United don't get state-backed owners and unlimited funds, then Liverpool will, or if not them, Arsenal or Spurs or whoever when they get put on the market.
Unfortunately it's part of the game now. So it may as well be a club profiting from it who deserves to be. Not PSG or city who'd boast the likes of Ayew and Danny Ings as their best players without their owners.
All of that may be true but using "mongoloid" as an insult is still pretty racist
Nope. There’s zero point in moral grandstanding when it makes zero difference and the whole world is so far gone in terms of capitalism. I just don’t care.
So if they were drowning puppies for capital gain, you wouldn't be arsed as long as we were picking up trophies?
Hopefully we'll hear more and more now the WC has finished.
I'm of the thinking that things have already changed and someone else is already pull the strings at the club from behind the scenes.
I'm of the thinking that things have already changed and someone else is already pull the strings at the club from behind the scenes.
They aren’t though are they? They do some pretty awful stuff. No denials there or defence but I have a pretty dim view of the west and all that we’ve done wrong over time. The whole world is so intertwined, their money is everywhere already. Neville’s point that the more they are integrated into our systems the bigger the likelihood reforms will come is also something to think about.
It's an undisputedly racist term, I don't know why you're even trying to justify it. Nobody is denying you had bad experiences, just your entirely bigoted logic derived from those experiences.
If United wants to have the most modern facilities and the expensive renovation of Old Trafford done, state-owned is probably the best bet, right? If PSG and City owners have showed us anything it's that they're not afraid to invest heavily not just in the squad but in the clubs entire infrastructure.
I don't like sportswashing, but I also don't like American ownership. Don't want to be stuck with Glazers 2.0, another Kroenke or a guy like Boehly who fires ETH because he doesn't want to teach him the game of football. That would be hell.
I don't like sportswashing, but I also don't like American ownership. Don't want to be stuck with Glazers 2.0, another Kroenke or a guy like Boehly who fires ETH because he doesn't want to teach him the game of football. That would be hell.
Unless I’ve misunderstood the context this isn’t racist.
I assume he was using it as an old term describing people suffering with Downs Syndrome. Not the race.
Wholly inappropriate mind.
I’m glad someone else said it before I did, the Saudi’s and Qatari’s have done so morally horrendous stuff but then so have lots of other countries.
At this point in time I personally don’t care as I care about United rather than politics and things completely out of my control, reality is it’s either state owned or more of the same that we’ve had under the Glazer’s.
I agree with them on the criticism about human rights violations but at the end of the day I, and millions of others, have a Man Utd shirt laying in the closet made by a Cambodian woman (or child) earning 45 cents an hour.
As long as it wasn't the absolute twat prince that butchered Khashoggi, I'm open to the idea since American owners are overall quite shit at running a succesful football club.
The term is derived from the race, it's implying that people with Downs Syndrome look like Mongolians. You can't use it in an unracist way.
There's a few reasons it was abandoned in the 60's, but the biggest one was it was derived from an 18th century German ethnologist.
Last edited:
Ahh thanks. I didn’t dig that deep. Makes sense reading that.
I think people lose the plot somehow and forget that we live in different worlds. Take for example, Qatar's stance on gay rights - do people know how much support they got from Africans, how most Africans are seriously conservative and how they wear their homophobia with pride? I often run into Twitter fights for expressing my nonchalant attitude towards gays, I don't really use one's sexuaity as a barometer for friendship or business but I am in a small minority.
Then there is the issue of the sweat shops, go there and see what having that low paying job in awful conditions does for those people's lives and how their lives would be if they didn't have that job. People will be so desperate for such a job that they offer sexual favors, bribes etc. I know this because casual laborers at my workplace go through the same for slightly more than 45c per hour. I once helped a young lady get a job, her sister having begged me to intervene and up to this day no one believes that I did it out of the goodness of my heart.
Drawing on personal experience, I spent my youth thinking that things will improve if Mugabe just died because no one could realistically be worse. Boy he not only lost power and he did die but what came after that! So you see these Saudis, Qataris are absolute filth but it can always get worse and it usually does see Lybia, Iraq or Egypt that elected the Brotherhood soon after ousting Mubarak and ended up with a coup government.
People are right to condemn what is wrong like what happened with Kashoggi but I find it hypocritical that the same people elect governments that enrich these thugs and protect them. Some are indirect beneficiaries of slavery, colonialism and blatant interference by their states in affairs of other states but draw the line at an Arab owning United.
I know I will get pelters for this opinion but we surely must have a Rhodes Scholar or two. Do they know how Rhodes got rich in Southern Africa? Or the history of dispossession, to the extent of taking skulls of our Spirit Mediums and transporting them to London for display in Museums? When Lobengula lost the Matebele War in circa 1896, Rhodes and Jameson created a Loot Committee to share the bounty of his kingdom's cattle estimated to be 300k.
That wealth including Slavery and over 500 years of colonization of America, Asia and Africa formed the bedrock on which the Western society of today casting judgments on others was built. The reality is that without the West's appetite for cheap oil the likes of MBS would be irrelevant nutters but every five years people on here vote to maintain a status quo where you buy oil from them, TVs from the Chinese etc and they buy arms from you then complain that they are using the benefits of your greed to satisfy their nefarious urges.
MBS is welcome to buy guns but not my football club, sorry but I will never get it.
Last edited:
We're not our government. How many of the people here do you think are okay selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
This idea that you cannot take a moral stance because your government does something is just so far beyond banal, its ridiculous. I don't want the UK government to own Man Utd either.
I can dissociate the owners of the club from the club itself so I wouldn’t stop supporting the team. I am surprised by how many actively seem to want Qatar/Dubai to buy us though. Fan channels and online seem to be very much in love with the idea.
This always comes up, I never get it either.
Yes because everyone else is doing it. Madrid have 14 CL’s because of it and pretend they won everything on merit as “god’s club”.
Under Fergie our budget was never that of Milan, Barcelona and Madrid because the government gets involved in their clubs especially back then.
Our government destroyed our club every chance it got turning sky down to purchase us and giving us the Glazer’s almost out of spite.
I don’t like been forced to play underdog to clubs / fans who don’t care when we can easily be the biggest and best club on the planet on and off the pitch if backed the same as they are.
Under Fergie our budget was never that of Milan, Barcelona and Madrid because the government gets involved in their clubs especially back then.
Our government destroyed our club every chance it got turning sky down to purchase us and giving us the Glazer’s almost out of spite.
I don’t like been forced to play underdog to clubs / fans who don’t care when we can easily be the biggest and best club on the planet on and off the pitch if backed the same as they are.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't be okay but I wouldn't stop supporting the club either.
Would hate the fact Saudis bought us if they do it but on the other hand football has long become a greedy, amoral, corrupt monster and there's no way back, it can only get worse and worse.
Would hate the fact Saudis bought us if they do it but on the other hand football has long become a greedy, amoral, corrupt monster and there's no way back, it can only get worse and worse.
Anyone saying no is just not rolling with the times, staying rooted in the past traditions and not evolving which ironically is also the perfect analogy for what has happened at the club till Murtough madness began.
Idealistic world you have a JIm ratcliffe type figure that clears debt and lets us work on our own dime like many have said in here. Reality is though if we truly want rid of the Glazers as many have also pointed out, only a few have that kind of string-free pocket change.
So option A - Let's remain idealistic and protest state ownership, get bought by an American consortium of Lewis Hamilton, some NFL team owners, business men and some American banks lending them dough. We do the cheap option spending few 100m to polish the stadium a bit, the debt is cleared but we still pay dividends to shareholders and spend within our means and are competitive in the top 8. Then watch on as City, Liverpool, Newcastle & whatever next state owned EPL club permanently lock us out of top 4 contention.
Option B - Welcome the investment, demand our third kit for the foreseeable future is Green and Gold, watch the rest of the league and rival fans cope and seethe, let the good times roll, once again.
Any president/CEO will be a shiny well spoken man in a suit like PSG and City have installed. No money in the billion range is morally achieved someone was wronged or stepped on unfairly in some way so lets not cut our nose off to spite our face when we are all in this for the love of the game, the sport and our football club achieving its sporting goals.
If any club deserving unlimited riches for its' contribution to football history and the overall mythos of the sport, it's us. We shouldn't have to fade into the dustbin of history cloaked in obscurity and "remember the 90's!" under achievement whilst these rubbish clubs fans get to take the piss and celebrate titles for decades to come.
Idealistic world you have a JIm ratcliffe type figure that clears debt and lets us work on our own dime like many have said in here. Reality is though if we truly want rid of the Glazers as many have also pointed out, only a few have that kind of string-free pocket change.
So option A - Let's remain idealistic and protest state ownership, get bought by an American consortium of Lewis Hamilton, some NFL team owners, business men and some American banks lending them dough. We do the cheap option spending few 100m to polish the stadium a bit, the debt is cleared but we still pay dividends to shareholders and spend within our means and are competitive in the top 8. Then watch on as City, Liverpool, Newcastle & whatever next state owned EPL club permanently lock us out of top 4 contention.
Option B - Welcome the investment, demand our third kit for the foreseeable future is Green and Gold, watch the rest of the league and rival fans cope and seethe, let the good times roll, once again.
Any president/CEO will be a shiny well spoken man in a suit like PSG and City have installed. No money in the billion range is morally achieved someone was wronged or stepped on unfairly in some way so lets not cut our nose off to spite our face when we are all in this for the love of the game, the sport and our football club achieving its sporting goals.
If any club deserving unlimited riches for its' contribution to football history and the overall mythos of the sport, it's us. We shouldn't have to fade into the dustbin of history cloaked in obscurity and "remember the 90's!" under achievement whilst these rubbish clubs fans get to take the piss and celebrate titles for decades to come.
Well said mush
Big time.
I'd love it if the Saudis bought us, and then took the club back to its green and gold colours.
I'd love it if the Saudis bought us, and then took the club back to its green and gold colours.
Very good post.
As the old saying goes, if your not in you can't win.
Not for me. United with that money would be cheating. Overnight we would be the perfect endgame for PSG or City in 50 years.
Fans are excited and and I don’t blame them for that but there’s a chance it just becomes..boring.
Fans are excited and and I don’t blame them for that but there’s a chance it just becomes..boring.
We've been hamstrung by these awful owners for a long time. Just our way of getting our full potential back.
But there’s potential and United having Oil money. No club could ever touch us again. There legitimately could come a time when we have our choice of every top, available player to buy.
Oh we got that wrong, let’s buy Mbappe. Jude available as well? 120m and 600k per week should do it. I feel it would desensitise us to an aspect of football that should feel special.
You could be correct. But we've proven under the Glazers, that spending money on buying players alone, will not be enough.
I just hope that any potential ME owners will bring more than just money. They employ the correct people do the necessary jobs.
The money would ensure that we have the correct people doing the necessary jobs. No having to settle for the likes of Murtough and Fletcher running the football side, with little prior experience at this level. The money would also, in time, ensure that we have the biggest and best scouting network, and state of the art training facilities.
Hopefully. However, there will be bumps in the road. New owners won't mean instant success.
As long as they make us competitive again I'd had no problem whatsoever. I dont think it's the football's job to teach morality.
Thankfully that myth finally blown out of the water 05ish ? When the council or bank had to bail them out after their first galactico spree.
True, but till jack walker and his millions came along and then Hall (Newcastle) to a degree we outspent anyone near us and from 88 till we did in 93 we spent massive money (for the time) and nearly broke the then transfer record on the players we were signing.
Wouldn't that have meant we be owned by the racist sexist bigot murdoch and no the Gov didn't give us the yanks, Alex Ferguson and his bloody ego did with his thinking he could beat two billionaires over a poxy horse in court, shows how little he knew really in that world, as one was from a city here in Ireland known as a third world city aka stab city aka Limerick and still when he was born resembled the slums of London, Dublin in the 1800s and made himself a billionaire. And even now that guy gets the Irish Gov to go along with his ideas, told them he'd get them the 2026 Ryder Cup, house them (his hotel/castle) and use his course as the venue free of charge, well not really, the Gov has to finally pump major money into Limerick now.
Last edited:
Great post.
More and more that you peel away, the more difficult it gets to have the moral high ground. All for people not being happy and not supporting United, but don't throw shade on those who are still willing to stay.
I wrote it before and will write it again. Hell yes to any state ownership at Manchester United Football Club.
Only way to compete with city and newcastle.
So all you care about is seeing some guys in red winning games. The soul and personality of the club means nothing for you.
Got it Dinostar77
- Status