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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Give it 15-20 years and most PL clubs will be owned by state funded owners / oil etc

Just let it happen OT needs to be sorted out and so does Carrington
 
The game we grew up with is already dead. There’s no win for us or Liverpool fans, unfortunately. That’s why both of the current owners have now decided to get out while the going is still good. It’s no longer competitive.

Honestly, I don’t care at this point because either way I expect to lose interest in the near future. And yes, that includes the scenario where we win a quadruple with oil money.
 
When City win the league, its as if its a draw, like no one won. Do we really want the feeling of any of our future victories to feel that way? I'd rather celebrate an FA Cup win with our own money than a dynasty built on oil money
 
I believe that countries buying football clubs is weird and not at all good for the game, although it is often beneficial for the financial strenth of the club. United are already strong financially, so I don't see much upside from being owned by a nation state and I'm therefore opposed.
 
Nope, wouldn't like to see United owned by any state. Countries shouldn't be allowed to own football clubs.
 
TheReligion said:
I don’t follow this?
Click to expand...
He's making a really disingenuous argument that existing in a state which does bad things is exactly the same as being owned directly by a state for the express purpose of enabling that state to continue to do bad things.

As if any of us would be happy with Rishi buying us for the English government's PR purposes.
 
Dion said:
He's making a really disingenuous argument that existing in a state which does bad things is exactly the same as being owned directly by a state for the express purpose of enabling that state to continue to do bad things.

As if any of us would be happy with Rishi buying us for the English government's PR purposes.
Click to expand...

It was that daft I didn’t want to believe that was the argument being made

Cheers
 
Unless the state backed entity is Manchester City Council, then no.

A football club should be built on the shoulders of the fans, not the shoulders of slave labour and human rights atrocities. We've done very well at that over the years and I don't want us to change it.
 
What ever happens you can bet unless the government forces a sale that this will be the last change of hands I see in my lifetime and im only 30. Some big company which is too big to fail or a oil state which prints money wont decide one day they want to sell up, no chance.
 
Not really but I'll always be an United fan, not much of a choice there.

Also let's be honest we wouldn't love it if we dominated like city do let's not fool ourselves.
 
marktan said:
No, I'd rather we continue to struggle than be financially doped up. What's the point of anything when you have unlimited funds? Build a team properly like Klopp did, or SAF did, or even say Brighton do.

Are the Glazers any good? No, I dislike them as much as the next person, but a state owned club is the next rung of the ladder down. At that point you might as well pack it in because the contest of football is dead and all that remains is who spends the most amount of money. Have people not been watching City and PSG spend crazy amounts of unearned money in a quest to win everything? Where's the sporting challenge in that? Great for United, but what about the rest of the league?

If anything having 3-4 oil clubs in our league would actually make me more open to a USA style system with fixed budgets and drafts (even though I dislike it because it rewards the owners more than players). Too often in the modern world free market capitalism goes mental and just becomes ruined by greed, and society and everything else decays because of it
Click to expand...
Good post. Pretty much how I feel.
 
No.

It brings huge moral implications for everyone involved, I can't see myself backing a club who trade decency for sporting success.

It makes no economic sense either, the eventuality in this situation is that the profit they have to generate from exterior ventures in order to plough money into us, in order to then make a returns from us in turn, just isn't going to happen forever. It takes massive initial investment, then cash injecting or sufficient drip feeding to keep us well oiled... Pun not intended.

I don't like inefficient business, and collecting clubs like playground Pokémon cards is expensive, and ultimately not profitable, it's more a vanity project to have the rarest card and shiniest shiny, and eventually they'll get the bill, or get bored.
 
Only way I could justify it would be through making a youtube channel where I engage in punditry while also taking ten seconds to criticize the regime every once in a while.
 
VidaRed said:
I'll take dubai but not the saudis.
Click to expand...

The lesser of two evils? They're about 90% as bad judging from a cursory scan of Wikipedia. They have their own page dedicated to human rights issues. I'd have to find a new team.
 
Hal9000 said:
Let's face it, with the money being asked no owner is going to be perfect.

Ineos is a chemical company with a piss poor environmentally record.

Apple literally uses foxconn who work their employee's to suicide on minimum wage.

Facebook sells your privacy.

Dubai has dodgy human rights records.

Musk is a complete loon.

The investment funds will be run to bleed the club, money is sometimes from questionable private locations.
Click to expand...

This. "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." Balzac.
 
I'm not comfortable with ownership at all given that you're always under the control of one person who has no accountability.

Wouldn't want an oil state buying us but I would be okay with it as long as it's not Saudi. The other oil countries may have their bad laws but atleast they don't interfere in other countries and keep to themselves. Saudi on the other hand have horrible laws and then try and promote their brand of extremism in other countries as well.
 
I'll never be okay with it but it's probably going to happen in the next year or so, and if not us it will be most of the PL at some point in the next 20 years.
 
I've noticed, not so much on here but there have been a few suggestions that some people try to shut down any opposition to certain States owning us as vague racism/islamophobia.

Rest assured, it's not. The same would apply if North Korea suddenly showed an interest. Or China, or if Putin decided he needed to clean up him image and exploit this great club in order to do so.

All of them, without question are the same kind of scum and how anyone would want them near our club blows my mind.

Even more baffling is how people will dismiss certain wealthy individuals because they say so ridiculous things on social media but then want the sort of morally reprehensible people and nations mentioned above. How does that even make sense?
 
hasanejaz88 said:
I'm not comfortable with ownership at all given that you're always under the control of one person who has no accountability.

Wouldn't want an oil state buying us but I would be okay with it as long as it's not Saudi. The other oil countries may have their bad laws but atleast they don't interfere in other countries and keep to themselves. Saudi on the other hand have horrible laws and then try and promote their brand of extremism in other countries as well.
Click to expand...
The United Kingdom does business with Saudi including selling them bombs that are dropped on Yemen. What’s your opinion on that?
 
stevoc said:
Nope, wouldn't like to see United owned by any state. Countries shouldn't be allowed to own football clubs.
Click to expand...
I agree. They shouldn’t. And if they wanted the integrity of the game back, they’d force Newcastle, PSG and city’s owners to sell like they did Abramovich and ban counties owning clubs.

But they won’t do either ever. And Newcastle won’t be the last English team to be bought and given a blank chequebook

Therefore if they’re coming regardless, I figure there’s not much point opposing it. It can’t be stopped. At least they’d be profiting a club who should have had more PL titles anyway
 
No, I'd stop supporting the club, I'll be removing all the utd posters from my bedroom, binning my utd mug. Same thing with the world cup, I am boycotting it and only watching it on TV... got to be on the high morale ground. Are there any eco friendly carbon neutral clubs out there I can support? Any suggestions welcome

But nah seriously, fine with it.
 
Games gone nuts when it’s made out that you have no chance to compete without being bankrolled by a country. FFP is too complicated to work it seems so perhaps a salary cap is the only option that’s left. State owned clubs aren’t going away so need to change the rules accordingly. Funny how no politics are allowed in football unless regimes are buying up clubs and making people money. We shouldn’t need to have these types of debates, it shows a real failure by the authorities
 
No.

Oil club ownership has taken much of the fun out of the game for me. Some may find this bizarre, but that's genuinely how I feel.

To have my club owned by oil money? No, that wouldn't be good. I might figure out a way for myself to be okay with it... or I may just walk away from the sport and never return. Don't know which yet. Let's see who actually buys us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.