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

Status
Not open for further replies.
croadyman said:
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
Click to expand...

sullydnl said:
Could end up getting a lot of mileage outta that meme in these threads. People can't resist braindead whataboutism.
Click to expand...

So you think my post was braindead whataboutism?

Fine.

The point i'm trying to make is, i don't have the time, i just don't have the time with a full job, 2 kids and a wife, with multiple other activities that i'm interested in to understand everything in the world and make all the connections.

Example, post i quoted.

Jp Morgan - Ineos?
How the feck would i know the two are connected?
Are they the bad guys?
I know Ineos from cycling, i like cycling. That's it.

Do i pluck more into that? How did they make their money?
Jp Morgan? They're s bank right? Are all banks bad? I don't know, i don't give a feck, i go to the bank when i need to, i don't follow banks and cheer for them, or follow their succes around.

That's what i'm saying....i don't really give a feck who owns the club i love.

It's not going to change my feelings about the club.
This club is deeply imbedded into my personality, and the possible ownership by whoever is irrelevant to me.

If, by any chance, the club was open for fan ownership, i would be delighted to participate.

There, that's the point.
 
I was torn down the middle the last few days on what I would like to have happen. But seeing the JP Morgan news has soured me on Ratcliffe. I fear it could be the same old nonsense that we've gone through as supporters, just with a new face.

I'd be a liar if I said the idea of having an insane amount of money put into the club's potential new stadium and surrounding grounds to make it a top, state-of-the-art facility and experience doesn't excite me. I just can't see that happening unless it's a ME group buying. And, honestly, having the chance to go out and turn the heads of elite players and having them potentially wanting to play for United again...it's really, really exciting.

There's no home run option here. Each buyer will have baggage. You don't accumulate that much wealth without it. We'll just have to see.
 
al tuna said:
I was torn down the middle the last few days on what I would like to have happen. But seeing the JP Morgan news has soured me on Ratcliffe. I fear it could be the same old nonsense that we've gone through as supporters, just with a new face.

I'd be a liar if I said the idea of having an insane amount of money put into the club's potential new stadium and surrounding grounds to make it a top, state-of-the-art facility and experience doesn't excite me. I just can't see that happening unless it's a ME group buying. And, honestly, having the chance to go out and turn the heads of elite players and having them potentially wanting to play for United again...it's really, really exciting.

There's no home run option here. Each buyer will have baggage. You don't accumulate that much wealth without it. We'll just have to see.
Click to expand...
Why has the JPM news soured you?

Banks lend money, there’s no issue with that - the issue is the Glazers put the debt on United. Boehly as a contrasting example raised $800m debt but Chelsea are not liable for it, it’s on him and Clearlake.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Why has the JPM news soured you?

Banks lend money, there’s no issue with that - the issue is the Glazers put the debt on United. Boehly as a contrasting example raised $800m debt but Chelsea are not liable for it, it’s on him and Clearlake.
Click to expand...
Well...I have zero knowledge of how major banking works to be fair. I guess hearing that gave me a rancid Glazer taste in my mouth. In a selfish way, I'd be afraid of comparing Radcliffe to the Glazers heavily in the beginning if he were get the purchase, which wouldn't be fair on my end.
 
al tuna said:
Well...I have zero knowledge of how major banking works to be fair. I guess hearing that gave me a rancid Glazer taste in my mouth. In a selfish way, I'd be afraid of comparing Radcliffe to the Glazers heavily in the beginning if he were get the purchase, which wouldn't be fair on my end.
Click to expand...
Put it this way - it is just dumb if you have 10bn of spending money, to actually spend all of that. It makes far more sense to have a loan pay for part of that on favourable rates, and then pay it off over time as your asset gains in value while you keep your cash on-hand.

The idea is over time, your asset will gain more value than the interest that you the owner would pay for it on top of the price. Buying something with a loan to fund part of what you want to do isn't a problem. The loan is on the buyer, and they are separate from the club. The club should keep the money within itself, what the motives of the buyer are there is no way to know. But the key thing is if something happens and the buyer needs to pay their loan, then they sell the club to save themselves, while if the loan is on the club, the club needs to get bailed out otherwise we go bankrupt. Very different.

They also aren't spending 6bn or whatever to expect to recoup that money. That money is converted from cash/loan/bonds/whatever, into an asset. United would simply be one of their assets now. It is in their best interests to grow the value of the club to raise the value of their assets. Nobody knows what they'd do, but running it smartly is just a smart, logical thing to do. The glazers did not run it smartly.
 
Do you want Manchester United to be a front for sports washing to a dictatorship that tries to move attention away from zillions of alleged, human rights issues? Should have been the question. The answer is no.
 
al tuna said:
Well...I have zero knowledge of how major banking works to be fair. I guess hearing that gave me a rancid Glazer taste in my mouth. In a selfish way, I'd be afraid of comparing Radcliffe to the Glazers heavily in the beginning if he were get the purchase, which wouldn't be fair on my end.
Click to expand...
Banks are just banks, they aren't really an issue. Most acquisitions will involve some form of financing and I guess Woody came from JPM which might also be why they are slightly tainted for us but the only thing that really matters to us as fans is if they load the debt on us or if they don't. Even with the Glazer ownership and poor on field performance we've been spending at extremely high levels - as long as we can keep that up whilst wiping off their debt I'd be happy and there are probably multiple parties who can offer such a deal, it just depends on if the Glazers are going to be reasonable with their price because £6b is ridiculous and the only prospective buyers that will come are those who don't care about making money and will be using the club name for other means.
 
bosnian_red said:
Put it this way - it is just dumb if you have 10bn of spending money, to actually spend all of that. It makes far more sense to have a loan pay for part of that on favourable rates, and then pay it off over time as your asset gains in value while you keep your cash on-hand.

The idea is over time, your asset will gain more value than the interest that you the owner would pay for it on top of the price. Buying something with a loan to fund part of what you want to do isn't a problem. The loan is on the buyer, and they are separate from the club. The club should keep the money within itself, what the motives of the buyer are there is no way to know. But the key thing is if something happens and the buyer needs to pay their loan, then they sell the club to save themselves, while if the loan is on the club, the club needs to get bailed out otherwise we go bankrupt. Very different.

They also aren't spending 6bn or whatever to expect to recoup that money. That money is converted from cash/loan/bonds/whatever, into an asset. United would simply be one of their assets now. It is in their best interests to grow the value of the club to raise the value of their assets. Nobody knows what they'd do, but running it smartly is just a smart, logical thing to do. The glazers did not run it smartly.
Click to expand...
This would be so much easier if every potential buyer made a 5 year plan public (and even then, who knows what would be truth or not)

As thrilling as this all is, I'll feel so much better after it's done. Thanks for all that info too. Very helpful.
 
Mmxxii said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really though, maybe city or Chelsea during their first 5-10 years of big spending were in that position, but once the debt is cleared and the stadium invested in, even if oil lost all of its value overnight and the Qataris had to sell the club, we'd be fine, we generate more than enough revenues ourselves, yes they'll probably assist if we make any mbappe level signings but we're not going to suddenly go bankrupt without their backing
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Must be weird not being able to respond to a simple question without insults. It sounds silly because it is highlighting a silly point of view.

So you are living in a fantasy? Okay. I will not hold my breath for the perfect owners who tick all of my moral boxes whilst also having 7 billion to spend on a sports team.
Click to expand...
Where did i "insult" you?
 
dannyrhinos89 said:
what if they just took a back seat and got rid of the huge debt, spent much need millions on improving Old Trafford and Carrington but didn’t get involved much on the football side of things.

I still think if the improved the finances within the club we wouldn’t need a huge cash injection on transfers like City and Chelsea.
Click to expand...
They are not spending 6 Billion to buy the club, 800 million to clear the debt, 500 million to up the facilities for the training ground, youth and Women's team and another cool billion for a new stadium to just, "take a backseat".
 
UTD_Since_1978 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mahrez is a strange example to follow your way better ones.
He wasn't a particularly high profile player and his title was a near miraculous one for a fairly average/small premier club.
 
sullydnl said:
Could end up getting a lot of mileage outta that meme in these threads. People can't resist braindead whataboutism.
Click to expand...
It has become very evident in the past week, and many United fans have been showing their asses.

Some of the mental gymnastics going on by many trying to justify the Qatari state owning the club is laughable.

this theme of indifference among fans is really disappointing given how vehemently outspoken and against oil state teams we have been.
 
Sandikan said:
Mahrez is a strange example to follow your way better ones.
He wasn't a particularly high profile player and his title was a near miraculous one for a fairly average/small premier club.
Click to expand...

I meant if Man City didn't have the money injected in to the club, City would be just a fairly average/small premier league club just like what they were before they were taken over, a player winning the PL title would not have gone to a club like City before City became rich as it would've been a step down for him especially as he was still only about 25 at the time.
 
I think now that FFP might actually be enforced, it won't really matter who owns us.

I also think we deserve a bit of a break after 2 decades of leeching.
 
I’ve posted this before, but for those that think this doesn’t change the history and tradition of the club or English football, it really does.


English football's history is deeply tied in with various social movements, working class identity and all sorts of politics. Now the premiership is watched globally, I imagine for many it is just entertainment, but even with that globalisation, Manchester United, like most English clubs, remains an important community asset within what remains a working-class city.

To be owned by the Qataris or any other nation state would corrupt all of that and go against the entire history of your club. An absolute monarchy ruling a country with almost no workers' rights is anathema to that.

Too many clubs have already been cut off from their working class roots, it's one of the reasons United and Liverpool are still begrudgingly respected by so many.

If all you want is entertainment, limitless funds and no history or morals, I'd recommend PSG or City.
 
Some of those reporting the Qatar interest are casually throwing in "oh and the Saudi's are interested too"

Not really up on these things but shouldn't that be a story of its own? I assumed the Saudi's could outbid the Qatari's if they went for it.
 
The Boy said:
I’ve posted this before, but for those that think this doesn’t change the history and tradition of the club or English football, it really does.


English football's history is deeply tied in with various social movements, working class identity and all sorts of politics. Now the premiership is watched globally, I imagine for many it is just entertainment, but even with that globalisation, Manchester United, like most English clubs, remains an important community asset within what remains a working-class city.

To be owned by the Qataris or any other nation state would corrupt all of that and go against the entire history of your club. An absolute monarchy ruling a country with almost no workers' rights is anathema to that.

Too many clubs have already been cut off from their working class roots, it's one of the reasons United and Liverpool are still begrudgingly respected by so many.

If all you want is entertainment, limitless funds and no history or morals, I'd recommend PSG or City.
Click to expand...

What is the "for" part of the clubs history?
 
red thru&thru said:
What is the "for" part of the clubs history?
Click to expand...
The working class, weren’t you set up by railway workers initially. Both Busby and Ferguson had strong working class roots and ideals.
 
The Boy said:
The working class, weren’t you set up by railway workers initially. Both Busby and Ferguson had strong working class roots and ideals.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with the owners? Do you believe all our owners were working class? You've just mentioned the managers.
 
red thru&thru said:
What has this got to do with the owners? Do you believe all our owners were working class? You've just mentioned the managers.
Click to expand...
No I meant that English football’s history is tied to its working class roots and working class communities, especially in the north of England. Being owned by an absolute monarchy is diametrically opposed to that.

I personally think it’s a shame, but it’s only my opinion.
 
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...

These are two critically important points. Any who are critical of others for making their own conclusions based on evidential fact, taking moral judgement into account and deciding that actually they are not happy with the situation are using this as coping mechanism for not dealing with the guilt of being complicit with the outcome. The only possible position on the other side of this is either morally ambiguous at best or more concerned with self interest. It's ok to be immoral, but you need to accept that is the case. It's ok to be more concerned with self interest, but you need to accept that is the case.

One example I was given was a guy who has followed united all his life, currently suffering with long term ill health which resulted in the breakdown of his career and marriage. He told me he didn't give a monkey's who owned United, but watching them play was one of the few joys he had left in his life. To him, that is more important that who owns the club. I can completely understand that position, and in fact it makes me more angry that he is put in that position. To be fair to him, he doesn't care.

We're in a rare position these days where his situation is thankfully rare, we're able to get our heads up and see things in the world around us which aren't right and not consumed by our own existential survival, we can push back on things like this. It's why universal suffrage and equality movements have really only taken force in the last 100 years. It's also why (and tin foil hat activated) they're trying to push us back down!

Let's not roll over eh?
 
The Boy said:
I’ve posted this before, but for those that think this doesn’t change the history and tradition of the club or English football, it really does.


English football's history is deeply tied in with various social movements, working class identity and all sorts of politics. Now the premiership is watched globally, I imagine for many it is just entertainment, but even with that globalisation, Manchester United, like most English clubs, remains an important community asset within what remains a working-class city.

To be owned by the Qataris or any other nation state would corrupt all of that and go against the entire history of your club. An absolute monarchy ruling a country with almost no workers' rights is anathema to that.

Too many clubs have already been cut off from their working class roots, it's one of the reasons United and Liverpool are still begrudgingly respected by so many.

If all you want is entertainment, limitless funds and no history or morals, I'd recommend PSG or City.
Click to expand...

This is a great post.
 
The Boy said:
I’ve posted this before, but for those that think this doesn’t change the history and tradition of the club or English football, it really does.


English football's history is deeply tied in with various social movements, working class identity and all sorts of politics. Now the premiership is watched globally, I imagine for many it is just entertainment, but even with that globalisation, Manchester United, like most English clubs, remains an important community asset within what remains a working-class city.

To be owned by the Qataris or any other nation state would corrupt all of that and go against the entire history of your club. An absolute monarchy ruling a country with almost no workers' rights is anathema to that.

Too many clubs have already been cut off from their working class roots, it's one of the reasons United and Liverpool are still begrudgingly respected by so many.

If all you want is entertainment, limitless funds and no history or morals, I'd recommend PSG or City.
Click to expand...

This is ultimately true, but the expectation that your average arsehole can do or should do something about it really is folly (not that you said this, in fairness).

Football is escapism and something to give people something to do at a weekend. If some folk want to become entangled with the geopolitics and ethics of it all then fair enough, all power to them. But if people don’t, and just want to be happy that their team is doing well, then I think that’s fair, too.

I don’t think states should own football clubs. But they do, and the game’s gone in that respect. The game missed the boat too long ago, and what will likely happen in the coming weeks and months is the end result for English football.
 
Last edited:
The way the Glazers have been, surely there's someone better, the Arabs are the main players if you read anything into it.

I'd love Sir Jim Radcliffe and his backers buy it, even Elon Musk. If the Arabs do take over then I suppose there's not much we could do about it, just like when the Glazers took over. As long as they invest in the playing staff, ground and training facilities etc. Then everything should be OK.
 
The Boy said:
No I meant that English football’s history is tied to its working class roots and working class communities, especially in the north of England. Being owned by an absolute monarchy is diametrically opposed to that.

I personally think it’s a shame, but it’s only my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's fair. What we have to remember is, the game is for the working class, overall. On the back of the working class is what football is built on, all around the world. We saw what football is without its fans.

I have no doubt that our owners will look after the working class fans.
 
Olecurls99 said:
I think now that FFP might actually be enforced, it won't really matter who owns us.

I also think we deserve a bit of a break after 2 decades of leeching.
Click to expand...

Yeah will be good that we can't just spree like Chelsea have just done in January window. Happy for us to add a quality partner for Casa and top striker but the rest don't need to cost silly money.
 
I wouldn't want us to be doing silly Chelsea stuff in the transfer market but I'd just be happy if we were able to pursue our targets without fecking about. So, if ten Hag, says get this player, we're not worrying about summer budgets etc., we just do the deal. Also, if they bankroll the OT infrastructure, that would be awesome. We still need to balance the books at the end of the day but just having a stronger position in the market will help. No more de Jong sagas is all I'm asking for.
 
this is going to be a serious fork in the road for me. There's nothing I despise more in world football that oil money, sportswashing and state-backed clubs, so seeing my beloved club probably joining that group is difficult. I can't see myself ever completely turning the back on United, but this will take away a lot of my personal emotional connection to the club.
 
I object but there's little I can do about it.

There's a difference between accepting something you can't help and what we've seen lately which is many fans suddenly pretending that human rights abuses are unimportant or claim they'll be glad when those who object stop following the club.

If your main thing you object to in life is opposition to murdering gay people you're a pretty scummy human being
 
The-Natural said:
If it happens I'm handing my badge back and it's very very painful to say that.
Click to expand...
Does the owner define the club for you? Or are they just temporarily the people who make some decisions until the next owner?

It's fundamentally just weird for me to ever "quit" on your club. Some rich arsehole who decides to throw money at the club isn't who I support, whether they are great or scum. They are simply owners during that period. The club lives on with or without them. People can protest the issues we have with them without bailing on the club.
 
bosnian_red said:
Does the owner define the club for you? Or are they just temporarily the people who make some decisions until the next owner?

It's fundamentally just weird for me to ever "quit" on your club. Some rich arsehole who decides to throw money at the club isn't who I support, whether they are great or scum. They are simply owners during that period. The club lives on with or without them. People can protest the issues we have with them without bailing on the club.
Click to expand...
Yup. Owners are temporary. Club is eternal. Relatively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.