Ah, a newcastle supporter
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
of course because all they did was killed millions of innocent civilians for their own gains..
but as it’s not white people lives, it’s a childing argument …
hypocrisy at its best
We've outspent most on transfers, but neglected the infrastucture, so now the Glazer model has become unsustainable as you can't keep doing that indefinitely.
Arsenal and Spurs could have done much more in the transfer market if they'd not built their new stadiums, but in the long run it will benefit them, we're now left in a position where the Glazers have literally stripped the club bare, and now that there is nothing left to take they want out, they're is a good reason they want out so quickly.
Manager and a few players apart, they are leaving the club in terrible state, so it's not really a sustainable buisness model imo.
When are Tony Blair or George Bush taking over as United's owners then?
Remember that Liverpool are also for sale now and we don't know who will buy them. Yes they have done well without mega funds, but it is getting more and more difficult.
I agree we could take a few barren years if they had rebuilt the stadium. The fact they have left the stadium and training ground to rot, yet taken money out of the club was never going to be sustainable in the long term.
You want me to list my beliefs, morals and philosophy? Well, that's a long, fluid and complicated list. I'll try to make a super short summarize (which will undoubtedly have many omissions) in the context of this discussion:
- I believe clubs must be run as businesses, giving them the same tools for success under equal conditions.
- I believe clubs must operate under fair market conditions and must adhere to economic models based on competition and dynamic market forces.
- I believe clubs should not be used for direct political gains, including sportswashing of reputation, based on acts, considered as crimes in the legal framework of the club's home jurisdiction.
(the reason why I say "direct" is because it is impossible to draw a line for "indirect" and what classifies as such)
- I believe clubs should not support individuals or organizations that are proven to have been involved in acts, considered as crimes in the legal framework of the club's home jurisdiction.
(the reason why I give Manchester United a tentative pass with Ronaldo is based on the word "proven", regardless that I strongly suspect he is guilty)
I fully realize the irony of "club's home jurisdiction" but I tend to agree with the main principles in the law system in the UK and have largely accepted it as a sound legal framework for a well-functioning, modern society.
I stopped writing as I realized how complex it is to put all of this in writing. I wouldn't mind having an active conversation about it but it feels a bit pointless in such a one-directional manner.
We've outspent all on transfers - net. By a large margin. But your objection is valid. However, it seems more than questionable that United wouldn't be in a position to both take care of infrastructure and keep up transfer expenditure on par with competitors, given owners who'd not take dividends out of the club and were prepared to invest to a reasonable degree. Just look at Arsenal, who's third in transfer expenditure and built a completely new stadium, from revenue much smaller than ours.
Of course, it'd require actual ability to find players in the 20-40m range who prove to be first XI quality, at least occasionally, and no longer doing things like overpaying by at least 40m for players, like we did we Antony. Other clubs manage this.
Last edited:
Terrible take, ban this mug.
Makes no attempt to respond to objections, just keeps pumping out the same shit. Obvious troll.
What word do you suggest people use then?
Something that describes something that actually exists, as opposed to something that only exists in the minds of people too lazy or stupid to deal with actual arguments so they would rather rely on a broad-brush ad-hominem?
Yeah, you’re right!
And if the Saudis hadn’t gone and killed all them white folk down in Yemen nobody would’ve said a damn thing.. Hypocrites the lot I tell you!
One could argue that things like the Premier League serve the purpose of distracting from or sportwashing the injustices of British society, of which there are plenty. The vast majority of us are probably wearing clothes made by slave children for example (likely football shirts). You could argue that's whataboutism but whataboutism is to the left what woke is to the right.
There are things about Western society that are better than Muslim society and vice-versa.
One of our previous owners was a toilet peeper btw.
Yes.
Join the party or get left behind FOREVER.
Join the party or get left behind FOREVER.
I do agree United can compete for titles simply by being self sufficient, but we need to be realistic
Any new owners will need to fork out billions to firstly buy the club and then invest in the stadium and other facilities (vital to keep United competing against the top teams and profitable - even the Glazers realise this now)
The only owners with those pockets are going to either be state backed, who’ll let United spend all their own money and then some, or a huge US consortium who’ll expect the billions they’ve invested back so will bleed United dry over 20 years and probably leave them in loads of debt. Unless Amazon etc get involved, to get exclusive rights to United
You are probably correct but its just hard to see those words written. Chelsea and City would have never be a what they are without a "sugar daddy" but I still hope/think this club can prosper with a different "business" model
Imagine the amounts of quality fans similar to this guy that would come populate our forum.
I'm so looking for it
True. I’m sure the ideal situation for many would be state backed owners being completely outed Abramovich-style, so Newcastle, PSG and City would have to be self-sufficient against a self-sufficient United. Perfect scenario and United would naturally blow everyone else out the park again
Unfortunately this oil money and state backed shit is here to stay. Those with it will be the most successful teams. Ronaldo’s gone for it, Messi has become a Saudi frontman too. It’s not going away.
At least if United have it, it’s not just making some shit team who doesn’t deserve it (city, Newcastle, PSG) really good - it’ll be making a team who should be the best anyway really good again
Football is a big business especially the EPL. Saudi, Qatar, or whichever state ownership is a business deal. Nothing more nothing less. And I see nothing wrong with it.
Abu Dhabi bought City and grow it exponentially to be as valuable if not more than Man Utd now ( I know City accounts are dodgy but the reported facts are thier revenue already surpassed us and the value of the club is around the same as Man Utd). City is doing brilliantly both in football and commercial fronts. They are playing world class football with world class players week in week out with first class infrastructure. Their revenues and fans are growing rapidly worldwide especially the younger generation.
On the other hands, Glazers are milking us dry and run the club to the ground. Debts, mismanagement, dividends, crumbling infrastructure and etc.
As Man Utd fan, my priority is to get rid of these leeches. We will be left further behind if we don't act now. I think Liverpool will also be taken over by a state ownership too. This is going to be the trend in the future as the money involved are in the billions.
People like to use sport washing and whatnot as reasons to reject state ownership. But looking from another perspective, it's just business and state ownership of football club is doing more good than harm to the club (case in point City).
Abu Dhabi bought City and grow it exponentially to be as valuable if not more than Man Utd now ( I know City accounts are dodgy but the reported facts are thier revenue already surpassed us and the value of the club is around the same as Man Utd). City is doing brilliantly both in football and commercial fronts. They are playing world class football with world class players week in week out with first class infrastructure. Their revenues and fans are growing rapidly worldwide especially the younger generation.
On the other hands, Glazers are milking us dry and run the club to the ground. Debts, mismanagement, dividends, crumbling infrastructure and etc.
As Man Utd fan, my priority is to get rid of these leeches. We will be left further behind if we don't act now. I think Liverpool will also be taken over by a state ownership too. This is going to be the trend in the future as the money involved are in the billions.
People like to use sport washing and whatnot as reasons to reject state ownership. But looking from another perspective, it's just business and state ownership of football club is doing more good than harm to the club (case in point City).
I almost completely agree with you. But I participate in Western society and my beliefs are much better aligned to its constructs. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with many common practices of the rumoured states who are interested in buying Manchester United.
And most importantly, I believe that every club must be run like a business.
Yeah, see it becomes difficult to say that the club would change based on your morals.
The club would need to be run as a shrewed business. FFP is a thing. Yes there are way around things but for the majority, all clubs abide by it.
I'm not too sure how the club would support anything of criminal acts. As we know, most, if not all, billionaires have some tainted past. Do they all fall in the legal framework? Probably not. I'd argue that purchasing Manchester United brings more spotlight on to the owners. New owners would have more eyes on them and would have more scrutiny.
Of course, your beliefs are your beliefs. They're neither wrong or correct. Just as mine. But again, I'll argue that having ME owners would help the surrounding areas of the club. You only have to look at what City owners have done and what Newcastle have planned.
Oh, stop this. I’m being very clear. I back State ownership as long as other clubs are allowed to be owned by states.
In ideal world, the clubs should be owned by supporters. But we are not living in ideal world. I accept it.
I accept that everything and everybody is not ideal and not trying to poison my and other peoples lives with toxic idealism.
You don’t want a state to own Man United. But you are happy with an owner from a democratic country like UK or US.
In both cases you can’t control how moral or law abiding they will be, so there is no difference. It’s just matter of opinion.
The only objective criteria for me is how much value in all aspects the new owner will bring to this club. Because I support and love Man United.
You are hypocrite. You trying to justify you own political preferences, project them onto the club using excuses like “aligned values” and judge me instead of discussing the pros and cons of state ownership.
Yes, I want trophies. I want money for United to buy players and infrastructure. I want us be successful. There’s nothing to be ashamed of. I don’t mix my political views with the club I love because this part of life must be free of agendas for me.
United makes my life brighter and connects me to my childhood. Sick and tired of toxic western propaganda. Why do you always polarize simple things ? What’s wrong with you?
Fan ownership isn’t great either: look at the Clusterfeck Barça.
Who ‘owned’ the club before the Glazers?
Who ‘owned’ the club before the Glazers?
Nothing is ideal, man. Look at Real Madrid. Why choose only one side? Look at Bundesliga teams, especially the atmosphere and connection to communities.
Like to see Ratcliff or Amazon taking over. We need to get someone who would put money into the club instead of taking it out.
It was a Public Limited Company.
I responded to another poster with a similar request: you need to decide what is more important for you, Manchester United winning at all cost, or supporting a club that doesn't cross any lines that create a conflict with your principles.
To me, having a state(-backed) owner crosses such lines. I don't have a problem with Manchester United not winning.
Well said
You are not very clear. You are mixing different things, either on purpose or not. I hope for the latter because otherwise you are being malicious.
I strongly disagree on your statement that clubs should be owned by supporters. That leads to democratic governance and that just leads to poor results.
I support Manchester United being owned and ran by business principles. For profit.
I also support Manchester United but I do not have it as my first and foremost principle in life. If supporting Manchester United conflicts with other principles, I need to make a decision. And I'm pretty certain what that decision will be.
How is me being 100% clear that I want my support of the club to align with my values? If anything, I'd argue that people who do not have this internal alignment are fooling themselves.
I’m not here to discuss you, man. I have my opinion on the subject, you have yours. No need to moralize and teach people how to behave, think and do things. Grow up a little.
Winning at any cost is extreme. However, winning is important.
This is all fine, but United are different to virtually any other top club right now imo, in that we need a new stadium, a new training ground, and probably another £200 million + to be spent on players, just to get us back to where we would have been if the Glazers had never taken over, or had run the club properly whilst they were here. Literally non of this would have happened if the PL had proper takeover rules in place, neither would we have people looking at Oil rich countries as the only way out if City and PSG had been properly kept in check by FFP.
We also have owners who feel they deserve to make a massive premium on us, just because we are who we are, so much as I'm not into state ownership, I'm struggling to see what value others will see in us, and would be very sceptical if we are bought by similar owners to Chelsea, I think Ratcliffe seeing us as some sort legacy purchase might be the best hope for the club having the right money spent on it outside of oil money.
I can’t wait to be taken over by an oil state and us getting back where we used to reside, either that or win the top four trophy once in a while.
Where was all this moral outrage when Saudi Telecom was an intrinsic part of our commercial strategy? Did anyone stop following the team after that ?
Where was all this moral outrage when Saudi Telecom was an intrinsic part of our commercial strategy? Did anyone stop following the team after that ?
Would Ratcliffe have that sort of money, or to do everything we need would he have to be part of a consortium?
Does Ratcliffe even have the budget to afford what the Glazers are wanting on top of improving both OT & Carrington as well as giving the budget ETH requires in order to carry out his vision?
That was why I queried it. He might be able to buy us, but it is all the rest, not just lining the Glazers pockets.
If we didn't have to spend so big on the stadium and potentially the training ground, a consortium would have been fine.
But with the cost of buying the club, clearing the debt and the infrastructure spend, whoever buys us will not see any gains for the short - medium term.
But with the cost of buying the club, clearing the debt and the infrastructure spend, whoever buys us will not see any gains for the short - medium term.
Of course. It's a matter of what each one of us as fans are willing to accept as the cost.
- Status