Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DickDastardly said:
Do you do due dilligence on everything you support or buy?

You buy Nike shoes? You do know they have factories in poor countries and are using people there?

You buy cars? Petrol them?
You do know that the petrol companies are rotten to the core?

Chocolate? Eat them? Fair trade ones only or?

Eat meat? Eggs? Grass fed? Sustainable?

Read books? Buy them off Amazon?

You get the drill.
Click to expand...

No, but I don't go out of my way to actively support them either
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Exactly. Anything, and I mean anything, can be argued for with whataboutism because we live in a world that's corrupt to its core and has been since records began - every authority we've ever known be it governmental, religious, economic has proven itself completely untrustworthy and so we either stay in this perennial loop of self destructive caveman logic or we don't. Personally I know my actions (should Qatar, or any state, come in and buy United and I stop following the team) won't make a difference but I'll be doing it anyway because it's what I believe is right.

I've seen people called 'holier than though' for saying similar on here but it's just a different opinion and the most vocal and vociferous posters arguing for this seem like they are trying desperately to justify it to themselves as ok. We all know it's not ok, we all know it's completely against the values that the club tries to represent and was built on so it shouldn't be surprising some fans aren't happy with it. If you decide you can live with it and just want to see the team win, each to their own.
Click to expand...
So much better explained than I ever could! Great post!
 
I support the club, not the owners so yes, I would be okay. The Glazers, Qataris or whoever else owns the club can get fecked as far as I am concerned. All the moral BS being spouted here is just funny considering that every single one of us directly contributes to making those regimes as powerful and rich as they are today and that they have already invested money in pretty much everything. Would them owning like 30% stake at the club suddenly make it all fine? I bet same people would gladly welcome "Visit Qatar" or similar to be our main shirt sponsor ignoring a fact that it's the same bloody money as long as someone like Jim Ratcliffe is the official owner.
 
This is all very exciting. I followed United before the Glazers, and during the Glazers, Ill follow them after the Glazers. its my club. As long as the owners do right by the club, supporters, the community (local and global) and respect the brand. I will be happy. if they don't, then just like the Glazers I will want them out.
 
It would guarantee a new stadium and training facilities, and an end to the debt. We already have the income to survive in the market, so as long as their is no funny business like ADUG, then I would be okay with it.

Oh and no renaming of the stadium or dubious airline sponsorship.
 
dove said:
I support the club, not the owners so yes, I would be okay. The Glazers, Qataris or whoever else owns the club can get fecked as far as I am concerned. All the moral BS being spouted here is just funny considering that every single one of us directly contributes to making those regimes as powerful and rich as they are today and that they have already invested money in pretty much everything. Would them owning like 30% stake at the club suddenly make it all fine? I bet same people would gladly welcome "Visit Qatar" or similar to be our main shirt sponsor ignoring a fact that it's the same bloody money as long as someone like Jim Ratcliffe is the official owner.
Click to expand...

So no one is allowed to criticize them because people use oil? How dumb is that argument?
Should we all live naked in the woods in order to be able to have an opinion on these matters?

Oil, food and clothes are absolute necessities in large parts of the world, football- no matter how much one may feel it is- is not. It’s not some secret that buying concious and fairly produced products is far more expensive and not a choice many people are able to live by, atleast not outright and without sacrifice.
 
JohnnyLaw said:
So no one is allowed to criticize them because people use oil? How dumb is that argument?
Should we all live naked in the woods in order to be able to have an opinion on these matters?

Oil, food and clothes are absolute necessities in large parts of the world, football- no matter how much one may feel it is- is not. It’s not some secret that buying concious and fairly produced products is far more expensive and not a choice many people are able to live by, atleast not outright and without sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Who says anything about not being allowed to criticise them? Criticise as much as you want, they deserve criticism for some of their actions. What is more dumb is "I would rather United become a midtable club than have Qataris as owners" that I have seen here.
 
With state investors where the state is a dictatorship, we are effectively left in a position where a democratic/political revolution can jeopardise the club's position.
 
dove said:
Who says anything about not being allowed to criticise them? Criticise as much as you want, they deserve criticism for some of their actions. What is more dumb is "I would rather United become a midtable club than have Qataris as owners" that I have seen here.
Click to expand...

Why would you actively support something linked to what you vehemently disagree with? As an example, I don't like what Nestle stand for - I don't buy their stuff even though I quite like a couple of their products.

I don't support what the Glazers did in terms of the leveraged buyout at all, but that's not even comparable to Qatar.
 
Its not often I agree with Simon Jordan but his take on a lot of Utd fans is spot on.

A lot of people want Johnny Redtrousers.
He is that lad from a working class family who was born a stones throw from Old Trafford and supported Utd all his life.
He has grown up to become one of the richest men in the world but his companies have the best humanitarian records in the world and he is a philanthropist loved by all.
He is desperate to take over Utd and throw about £50 billion at us to make us the best in the world just because of his undying love for the club.
We can all agree he is the perfect owner.

Sound like La La land?
100% correct
 
Rayman96 said:
Its not often I agree with Simon Jordan but his take on a lot of Utd fans is spot on.

A lot of people want Johnny Redtrousers.
He is that lad from a working class family who was born a stones throw from Old Trafford and supported Utd all his life.
He has grown up to become one of the richest men in the world but his companies have the best humanitarian records in the world and he is a philanthropist loved by all.
He is desperate to take over Utd and throw about £50 billion at us to make us the best in the world just because of his undying love for the club.
We can all agree he is the perfect owner.

Sound like La La land?
100% correct
Click to expand...

I don't really care if his intentions are morally pure or not. I'd still rather have him than have United being used as a political vehicle for the Qatari state.
 
I wasn't a fan of Middle East owners but I'm starting to come round to the idea that they might be the best option.
 
Isn’t the reason that people are particularly opposed to Middle East state ownership, rather than any old state, because they're Islamic countries?
 
I just want a good owner, and not leaches like the Glazers. We make enough money to be self sustainable, just invest more in the academy, and sort the stadium and get a good recruitment structure in place.
 
If they invest in the infrastructure and doesn't go ballistic in the transfer market I guess it's ok.
 
In football there are no morals and everyone is a hypocrite eventually. From what I've seen over the years there are two sets of fans, those who understand this and just get on with it & those who pick and choose where and where not to be morally righteous simply because of tribalism. I watched Marcos Alonso play for my club for years knowing that he did something absolutely awful. Does that mean I stopped supporting him on the pitch? No. In a normal world he shouldn't have been playing football again but football seems to have a different ruleset to the real world. You can either accept that or play a stupid game where you start criticising players at rival clubs but turning a blind eye to your own. The same thing with ownership and many other things.
 
dove said:
I support the club, not the owners so yes, I would be okay. The Glazers, Qataris or whoever else owns the club can get fecked as far as I am concerned. All the moral BS being spouted here is just funny considering that every single one of us directly contributes to making those regimes as powerful and rich as they are today and that they have already invested money in pretty much everything. Would them owning like 30% stake at the club suddenly make it all fine? I bet same people would gladly welcome "Visit Qatar" or similar to be our main shirt sponsor ignoring a fact that it's the same bloody money as long as someone like Jim Ratcliffe is the official owner.
Click to expand...
Yes, give up on any improvement or progress because of the status quo. How aspirational of you.
 
Please no! I didn't think anything could be worse then the Glazers but a state or state backed ownership would be the worst!
I really want someone from England to own the team.
 


There are no palatable options on the table here. There is no queue of ethical multibillionaires out there scrambling to claim a piece of one of the world’s dirtiest sports. Nobody has ever accumulated the sums of money required to buy a football club of Manchester United’s size without some form of widespread exploitation: exploitation of the planet, exploitation of human rights, exploitation of some of the world’s poorest and least powerful people. Just because the Glazers were terrible, parasitic owners does not mean the next guys will be any better.

But United fans have always liked to think of their club as an exemplar. As somehow more cherished and noble than any other. How stirring it would be if, as in 2005 when they furiously protested against the Glazer takeover, they chose to evoke that sense of exceptionalism for the greater good of the sport. To resist the prostitution of their club to one of the world’s most savage governments. To demand better. The Glazers took hundreds of millions of pounds out of United. A Qatari takeover would take more still: something unique and elemental and important, something that it could never, ever replace.
Click to expand...
 
Hard to argue against Liew's conclusion, although some of the uneducated spunkbuckets in this thread would:

There are no palatable options on the table here. There is no queue of ethical multibillionaires out there scrambling to claim a piece of one of the world’s dirtiest sports. Nobody has ever accumulated the sums of money required to buy a football club of Manchester United’s size without some form of widespread exploitation: exploitation of the planet, exploitation of human rights, exploitation of some of the world’s poorest and least powerful people. Just because the Glazers were terrible, parasitic owners does not mean the next guys will be any better.

But United fans have always liked to think of their club as an exemplar. As somehow more cherished and noble than any other. How stirring it would be if, as in 2005 when they furiously protested against the Glazer takeover, they chose to evoke that sense of exceptionalism for the greater good of the sport. To resist the prostitution of their club to one of the world’s most savage governments. To demand better. The Glazers took hundreds of millions of pounds out of United. A Qatari takeover would take more still: something unique and elemental and important, something that it could never, ever replace.
Click to expand...

Arguably the biggest club in english football being owned by a foreign nation-state would be truly depressing.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Isn’t the reason that people are particularly opposed to Middle East state ownership, rather than any old state, because they're Islamic countries?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, it’s just that the type of Middle Eastern states we’re talking about are absolute monarchies, rich from fossil fuels, with repressive laws, medieval attitudes to women and gay people, an indentured migrant worker caste, etc.

Those aren’t things associated with Islamic countries, or Muslim people in general. They’re things associated with Qataris, Emiratis and Saudis.

And anyway, are there many other states, Muslim or otherwise, that are interested in buying United, apart from those Gulf states?
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Isn’t the reason that people are particularly opposed to Middle East state ownership, rather than any old state, because they're Islamic countries?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Middle East ownership is just by far the most likely form of state ownership, so it is the focus of attention.

If we imagine there was a mechanism by which the UK owned Manchester United then (for me at least) the same issue would arise. Suddenly the idea of wearing a Manchester United shirt would take on similar dimensions to that of wearing the poppy, something I would never do as to me it represents a form of nationalism I would not wish to associate with. Ditto a state like the US. Or most nation states really, as there are few without a degree of baggage that dwarves what pretty much any individual person is capable of accumulating in their lifetime. And that includes my own country, Ireland.

I don't need that baggage placed on my football team. I just want it to be its own thing, as much as possible.
 
DickDastardly said:
Do you do due dilligence on everything you support or buy?

You buy Nike shoes? You do know they have factories in poor countries and are using people there?

You buy cars? Petrol them?
You do know that the petrol companies are rotten to the core?

Chocolate? Eat them? Fair trade ones only or?

Eat meat? Eggs? Grass fed? Sustainable?

Read books? Buy them off Amazon?

You get the drill.
Click to expand...

I used to go and watch eggs home and away but until I saw a documentary on factory farming
 
I'm hoping Ineos win the bid, but I just can't see them outbidding the oil states
 

Could end up getting a lot of mileage outta that meme in these threads. People can't resist braindead whataboutism.
 
Tarrou said:
I'm hoping Ineos win the bid, but I just can't see them outbidding the oil states
Click to expand...

Don't want JP Morgan connected with club so fully in the Qatari camp,yes I know what their country stands for but I see it different with them being private investors
 
Perfectly ok as I live in the real world and not in some wokeshit Lalaland. Also I know that world history is a bit older than the last 30 years. So yeah. Having worked with Goldman Sachs for a couple of years I know what they are and what kind of animals their top executives are. Would never want them to bankroll any move for my club.
 
Hate to tell you this guys but it's gonna be Qatar, they're already advertising on the CAF amd on this very page

th
 
To answer the topic question:

Probably not because over the years I've slagged off PSG & Man City, saying they would be nothing without their new owners, so, it would be double standards for me although UTD already have a massive worldwide following & the worldwide reputation to attract top players something PSG & Man City didn't have before their new owners came onboard.

I mean in the late 1990s would players of the ilk of Neymar & Messi look twice at PSG, would a player (Mahrez) with an EPL title under his belt look twice at City? Of course not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.