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

Status
Not open for further replies.
romufc said:
If you think that its only modernised in terms of technology and architecture, then that is your opinion.

I guess the following laws are technology and architecture?

Decriminalizing out-of-wedlock relations
Alcohol is now allowed
Women can wear what they want now

With the Middle East, its not just changing laws, its changing the culture too, this takes years, its not something that can happen overnight.

What we have seen is progress. People always look at the negatives, acting as if the West is perfect.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll keep my focus on all those unjust laws and lack of human rights, even though I know I as a non-gay male I can go to a bar and drink alcohol without fear of being arrested or worse. If that's "looking at the negatives", so be it.
 
Someone said:
As someone who lived in the middle east my whole life, I can tell you that progress is definitely happening, but it's gonna take time. Most middle east dictators currently aren't overly conservative, but societies are still largely religious, and things like gay rights are few decades away from happening in most Arab countries. Democracy isn't there and that will always slow down progress, but it's there.

I really believe that whether a state is good or bad it's irrelevant, because even if we're owned by New Zealand you still have to question why does a country need to own a football club. It's just wrong from all angles. We don't even need it, we can fully remain competitive without a sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And yeah I 100% agree on the bolded part.
 
Wumminator said:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/managem...ty-management-school-and-university-sheffield

They’ve redeveloped the area. It’s a lot nicer.
The lane they built on was sold to them a lot lower than what would be expected.

they have paid 4p tax on every 100.00 profit.

none of the houses built were for lower income households. People have been priced out from their own communities.
At a basic superficial level - the area is nicer. When you dig down, Manchester has lost our massively.
Basically, more tapas bars. Less affordable houses and tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Rich corporations pay little tax - it’s disgusting but it’s common and legal. Any criticism should be levelled at the city council in my opinion.
 
Wumminator said:
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/managem...ty-management-school-and-university-sheffield

They’ve redeveloped the area. It’s a lot nicer.
The lane they built on was sold to them a lot lower than what would be expected.

they have paid 4p tax on every 100.00 profit.

none of the houses built were for lower income households. People have been priced out from their own communities.
At a basic superficial level - the area is nicer. When you dig down, Manchester has lost our massively.
Basically, more tapas bars. Less affordable houses and tax revenue.
Click to expand...


Interesting article the complete opposite of what I've heard about them.
 
mu4c_20le said:
Replace it with match fixing and probably still works
Click to expand...

Not really - one is cheating, the other is just morally wrong. We can prevent the others from cheating, we cant prevent the others from having shitty rich owners
 
Spoony said:
Yeah the regeneration is appealing. The city has changed so much since I was a kid. Loads derelict parts of centre are being regenerated. NOMA, Redbank, Mayfield et al were just derelict land and now they're being developed. I'd love that to extend around the stadium. Strangeways and all...now that area has been left to rot. Full of crime. Apparently they're some plans put in place. @Wumminator
Click to expand...

I was living in New Islington a while ago and whilst I'm aware theres been some dodgy dealings with how Abu Dhabi acquired the land, I loved living there and it wasn't like Mayfair expensive tbh.
 
A question for those who keep saying we’d be “buying trophies” and any success would feel “hollow” under Qatari ownership. We spent over £200m in the summer, now if we were to win the League cup or as crazy as it would be win the league this season would it feel hollow? Would we have brought those trophies? Or does that only apply if we were to spend similar amounts next season under Qatari ownership?

The point is we aren’t anything like City, Newcastle etc. We are self sufficient as a club and if we spend big in the market it’s with are own cash we generate and will continue to do so even with Qatari ownership. They won’t be spending millions of their own cash in the market and propping us up with artificially inflated sponsorships like City. Therefor I don’t get the whole soulless, buying success rhetoric. It would be nothing alike.
 
macheda14 said:
So then what’s your point about US or UK ownership?
Click to expand...

Im not going into it again. Just that almost no country is ‘clean’ including the businesses that operate within them. Easy to demonise Qatar while there’s plenty wrong closer to home
 
Pickle85 said:
I'm not sure you really understand what that word means. What exactly is colonial about that article?
Click to expand...
Extending our ideas of taste to the rest of the savage world. Take a look of that wonderful example of taste called the British museum.

Edit: It was the quote from the end of the article that I was commenting on.
 
webbthepostie said:
Extending our ideas of taste to the rest of the savage world. Take a look of that wonderful example of taste called the British museum.
Click to expand...

Colonial: relating to or characteristic of a colony or colonies.

You probably mean colonialist.

Colonialist: characteristic of or involving the practice of gaining political control over other countries and occupying them with settlers

But neither really makes sense.

Edit: also, to be clear, you're the one using words like savage...
 
Pickle85 said:
Colonial: relating to or characteristic of a colony or colonies.

You probably mean colonialist.

Colonialist: characteristic of or involving the practice of gaining political control over other countries and occupying them with settlers

But neither really makes sense.
Click to expand...
How do you pronounce pedantic?
 
If Newcastle beat us in the final, watch all these Qatari cheerleaders tie themselves in knots to point out the differences between Saudi/Newcastle and Qatar/United, while also having an inability to understand the much more obvious differences between Qatar human rights/United Vs western human rights/United (aka countries not buying United.

the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is pathetic.
 
It’s a shame that this feels like the only way we will be able to be truely competitive across the board. It’s a shame that’s the state of the modern game. It’s become a monopoly board for a Uber rich to the point that someone like ratcliffe probably doesn’t have the level of wealth to invest what we need to be at the very top again.

would most united fans prefer a nice honest family with billions to splash, probably (that doesnt exist btw). Will we sell our soul if bought by Qatar, it’s probable. We will get a new shiny stadium with naming rights. Will it even be old Trafford anymore? We will have the best of everything and buy galactico signings. Probably win trophies.. will it feel the same or will we become everhthing we say we hate in recent times? (city, psg, Newcastle). Maybe.

time will tell but it looks like it’s happening… I just hope we stay authentic and true to our roots. We’re already rich. We have history and heritage that we don’t need to buy. Just pay off the debt and invest in stadium and facilities… the rest we have got covered. I hope they don’t tamper with too much. Old Trafford and this club is special. It feels special already. It doesn’t need its soul tampering with. I hope they keep the tradition of the club alive. I hope the new owners understand this club and what its core and soul means.

there is no other club in this country that when you step into the stadium you can feel it’s history. It’s just incredible. The etihad, emirates, tottenhams swanky new stadium.. they have lost that. Yes they are more modern and a more comfortable experience (yes I admit we need the stadium sorting) I just hope we dont become something similar to them. Soulless. The legends in the game that have walked through the tunnel as stone roses plays out. The historic games that have been played in our beautiful stadium, money can’t buy. It’s hairs standing on end, it’s goosebumps, it’s a feeling that can’t be compared, can’t be replicated. I hope this club keeps its beauty and what it stands for above all else, just maybe with a modern twist.
 
Last edited:
Wumminator said:
It’s not an article, it’s a scientific study.

Im not surprised it’s not been reported. That’s the purpose of sportswashing.
Click to expand...
You are of course correct, here and throughout all of your posts on this. It’s a sewer in here. The whataboutism in particular is embarrassing. Keep fighting the good fight!
 
Scholesgoals said:
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?
Click to expand...
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...
Man, these two posts slap so hard.

Well put.

United fans need to stop their whattaboutisms, mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty to justify the Qatari ownership.

It's lame and really exposes the limitations of our individual integrity. I've seen youtubers and content creators who rightfully condemn Greenwood but also happy to twerk for Qatari money and ownership.
 
Shakesey said:
I'm not making fun of people who choose to abandon the club. I'm saying they are hopeless romantics. If someone asked me now if the world would be a better place if it was run by romantics then I'd be all for it. The thing is, it isn't. It's filled with selfish, short-sighted people. I used to be a romantic, then I just gave up. Now I'm selfish and short-sighted.

I care about my family, my job, my dogs, my friends, my club. My own little world. I decide how I view what is important to me. Now, if someone says my club will be run by murderous dictators and that the game's gone they might be right. But in my little world, I decide what's right. I will find a way to be happy with whoever becomes our owner, as long as they treat my club with consideration. Feck the Glazers, all hail anyone who is willing to invest in one of the things that bring joy to my world.

Posters saying they're going to run off and support some other club have every right to do it. Let them stand up for their ideals! I don't care. On a forum, however, I will voice my own little selfish, short-sighted opinion because I want to. Your view is noble. Nice! Mine is realistic, because I choose to believe it - hence, it becomes real to me.
Click to expand...
reality isn't a select your adventure video games.

Your inability to deal with real world consequences doesn't change anything no matter how much you delude yourself.

There are consequences for our actions as equally as our inactions. You say you care about your family and job and dogs, but seem to be unwilling to stand for anything that would make the world a better place for them.

Kudos to admitting your selfishness and short-sighted world view, truly, most people put up a performative front.

Regardless, there will be consequences to blood state ownership.

The bill comes due, always.
 
Last edited:
Pickle85 said:
Can you read? Neither makes sense in the context you used it. You thought something was patronizing. What does that have to do with colonialism in this context?
Click to expand...
Neither make sense to you would be the correct way to put it if we're practicing pedantilism.
 
Just compiling a list of people on both side of this debate.

Can anyone else add to it?

AGAINST Qatar ownership:

Human Rights Charity: Fair Square
Multi national charity: Amnesty International
Manchester United legend: Eric Cantona

FOR Qatar ownership:
Unitedtransferteam420 from Twitter
 
Sviken said:
Ah yes, because human rights charities are run by little angels and there is no corruption there whatsoever at all. Why, who am I to argue?
Click to expand...
crossy1686 said:
Because they like publicity and it's good for business?
Click to expand...

Bringing this to appropriate thread.

I can’t believe we now have people siding against charities for human rights and to end abusive laws because we will have a higher net spend.
 
My attitude has been that i was inevitably going to hate anyone who had 5 billion to spend on a football club and that I'd probably continue supporting the club regardless because ... habit i guess. Its a bit of a reach to go from watching a football match to being responsible for whatever grotesque shit the owner had done / was doing.
Now that it looks pretty inevitable, I'm not sure i can at this point. The Manchester City / Barcelona / Juventus cheating stories have gone a long way to end any interest I had in the sport and i think this might be the final nail in the coffin.
 
Wumminator said:
Bringing this to appropriate thread.

I can’t believe we now have people siding against charities for human rights and to end abusive laws because we will have a higher net spend.
Click to expand...
No one's siding against anything, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard be so divisive.

You asked why a charities would write in opposition for something they're campaigning against and it's fairly obvious they would do that because it's within their interests to do that if they want to keep their current donors and attract more donors within that space. Did they write to Russia when they started dropping bombs on Ukraine? Surely they care about all human rights abuses right? Or are they specifically only going public about their concerns when it actually affects their business?

I'm not fecking siding against anything, I donate to charity regularly, but you know the answer to the question you asked and you're purposefully trying to wind people up like we're all super happy and you're the only one against a Qatari takeover.

We're all unhappy with certain aspects of it, in an ideal world we'd have it a different way. If you genuinely care and want to make a difference then do something instead of quoting random people on a forum and getting your tits off about stuff that isn't happening.
 
crossy1686 said:
No one's siding against anything, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard be so divisive.

You asked why a charities would write in opposition for something they're campaigning against and it's fairly obvious they would do that because it's within their interests to do that if they want to keep their current donors and attract more donors within that space. Did they write to Russia when they started dropping bombs on Ukraine? Surely they care about all human rights abuses right? Or are they specifically only going public about their concerns when it actually affects their business?

I'm not fecking siding against anything, I donate to charity regularly, but you know the answer to the question you asked and you're purposefully trying to wind people up like we're all super happy and you're the only one against a Qatari takeover.

We're all unhappy with certain aspects of it, in an ideal world we'd have it a different way. If you genuinely care and want to make a difference then do something instead of quoting random people on a forum and getting your tits off about stuff that isn't happening.
Click to expand...


Rather than write my own reply to this, I will use quotes from you earlier in the year before it seemed Qatar could buy United. This is you talking about Qatar.


crossy1686 said:
This is my favourite argument: “You’re not allowed to criticise discrimination that’s happening right now because you go to war sometimes”.

Nah mate, it’s abhorrent and we will absolutely speak up about the disgusting discrimination that’s going on in such countries. You’ll also find that a very large majority of westerners are against war and don’t agree with their countries decision to go to war whenever it happens, but I guess you wouldn’t know that because your media doesn’t want you to know that.
Click to expand...

This is you talking about the power of sportswashing.
crossy1686 said:
Yes it does work. Have you ever wondered why you rarely hear about this shit going on in these countries? Have you ever wondered why there's so many politicians and rich businessmen quick to jump to the defence of oil states?

It's obviously working because people like you post stuff like this on forums.
Click to expand...
 
It's not ideal, but what really winds you up is these journos thinking we are 'selling our soul' and should find our 'moral compass', 'make a stand', etc, whilst on the main lapping up everything City have done for the last 14 years, and also rarely saying anything meaningful about what the Glazers have done to us for the last 18 years. When they do it often comes accross as them finding it amusing, and harping on about how much they've spent on players, so what's the big issue.

I would be very happy for the this to not happen, but only if a stop is put to City, Newcastle, and PSG, but it won't be, so there is no way they can stop this going through without looking like it's just making an example out of United.
 
Wumminator said:
Rather than write my own reply to this, I will use quotes from you earlier in the year before it seemed Qatar could buy United. This is you talking about Qatar.





This is you talking about the power of sportswashing.
Click to expand...
That was before it became clear that we might sign Mbappe though. That made it clear that the true corruption is within human rights organisations.
 
Wumminator said:
Rather than write my own reply to this, I will use quotes from you earlier in the year before it seemed Qatar could buy United. This is you talking about Qatar.

This is you talking about the power of sportswashing.
Click to expand...
I stand by those comments.

Speak up and do something about it. Hold people accountable for their actions. I don't want it to happen and I've given walking away from football serious consideration, but it's going to happen and I've come to terms with that and I will miss football too much.

What I will do, as a fan, is make demands that the women's team is supported as much as possible, and speak out/complain to governing bodies if I believe there is any form of discrimination happening at Manchester United.

Outside of that, as a fan, there is nothing more I can do. The press are going to hold these guys accountable for a lot of stuff anyway because they're massive hypocrites, so it's going to be hard for them to put a foot wrong.

There's nothing anyone here on this forum can do about the way Qatar is run as a country. It's shit but it is what it is. If anything, I'm hoping if we do get Qatari owners I, and others, will become more educated in what's actually happening over there and feel compelled to do more if possible. Until then we're all just along for a ride and we have to decide how we're going to react when this becomes a reality.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
It's not ideal, but what really winds you up is these journos thinking we are 'selling our soul' and should find our 'moral compass', 'make a stand', etc, whilst on the main lapping up everything City have done for the last 14 years, and also rarely saying anything meaningful about what the Glazers have done to us for the last 18 years. When they do it often comes accross as them finding it amusing, and harping on about how much they've spent on players, so what's the big issue.

I would be very happy for the this to not happen, but only if a stop is put to City, Newcastle, and PSG, but it won't be, so there is no way they can stop this going through without looking like it's just making an example out of United.
Click to expand...
I mean, if this goes through then the possibility of that being dealt with becomes even more remote. PSG dont matter, City are potentially getting kicked down to league 2 and Newcastle haven't been a problem yet and dont need to become a problem
 
Wumminator said:
Rather than write my own reply to this, I will use quotes from you earlier in the year before it seemed Qatar could buy United. This is you talking about Qatar.
Click to expand...
Wumminator going all investigative forum journalist on people is one of the best parts in all of this :lol:. People are hypocritical as hell out here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.