In an ideeal world we could do with seeing how City are going to be dealt with before this happened, and how their owners deal with it.
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
In an ideeal world we could do with seeing how City are going to be dealt with before this happened, and how their owners deal with it.
Hello. Would it be possible for a moderator to add a poll to this thread?
I have been following it and I would guess it is 60/40 in favour of 'No' but I am just estimating.... I guess many of the majority (if it is a majority) are conflicted: after spending over a decade criticising your noisey neighbours and about a season voicing similar 'moans' about Newcastle, it would be difficult to then eat ones words and accept say Qatari ownership....
I have been following it and I would guess it is 60/40 in favour of 'No' but I am just estimating.... I guess many of the majority (if it is a majority) are conflicted: after spending over a decade criticising your noisey neighbours and about a season voicing similar 'moans' about Newcastle, it would be difficult to then eat ones words and accept say Qatari ownership....
I think it would be the other way around. Based on the posts around I think it would be closer to 60/40 or 70/30 in favor of “Yes” but I am really curious to see what the results would be.
The grey areas in between of not being okay with it but still watching the team would probably skew the results somewhat. Perhaps a more interesting question would be “If United did become state owned would you continue to watch or not”
It should be levelled at the government, they set the tax levels not the city council
So much of our fanbase are disgracefully hypocritical.
The worst part is they won't own it, even when they get caught in 4K.
One could say NO to an absolute monarchy state, that disrespects human rights, taking over the football club you follow. That would actually be doing exactly that. This is one of the few times you can actually make a difference. If enough fans said loud and clear: NO! We will not have it! Not us!
It would make a difference. If enough fans stopped going to matches and stopped buying merch if they took over, it would make a difference. This is how we can actually make a difference. If enough banners highlighting the reasons why we dont want The Emir of Qatar to own and control the club were visible in and around the stadium it would make a huge difference.
If you're not happy with the State of Qatar buying the club, say NO to it!
Don't try to find reasons to justify it.
I'm saying it loud and clear: If a dictatorship state (with a bad human rights record and a discriminating set of laws) buys Manchester United football club, I'm out. I will not have it! I will not suppport the club anymore.
That is a sacrifice I'm willing to make for this cause. Hopefully there are more people willing to do this or similar sacrifices so that the sum of them can make a real difference.
You can't fight all the battles in the world, but you can fight the ones that comes to you and especially the ones that touches your life or the things/people you care about, and this one does.....to all Manchester United fans.
Indifference is the biggest enemy to change.
Okay, I openly say NO to being owned by a state that has poor human rights practices.
What do I do now? Am I allowed to watch United again now? Am I allowed to continue supporting the club? How does it work from this point onwards?
I've never liked state ownership or foreign billionaires taking over football teams. But it's the new reality not only at United but all the teams around us.
I'd love a magical story about the fans taking over united, but it's absolutely not going to happen. And in that case? Well quite frankly it's quite tempting to go from the Glazers squeezing evey possible penny out of the club to having an owner who invests not only on the pitch, but in the stadium, the area around the stadium, the club infrastructure, training ground and youth system.
If the choice is a goldman sachs funded takeover or oil money then il have to hold my nose either way. So might as well let the oil cash flow
I'd love a magical story about the fans taking over united, but it's absolutely not going to happen. And in that case? Well quite frankly it's quite tempting to go from the Glazers squeezing evey possible penny out of the club to having an owner who invests not only on the pitch, but in the stadium, the area around the stadium, the club infrastructure, training ground and youth system.
If the choice is a goldman sachs funded takeover or oil money then il have to hold my nose either way. So might as well let the oil cash flow
Good!
Now you stop going to matches (if you used to do so), stop buying merchs and highlight what's wrong with sportswashing, discrimination, dictatorships and human rights violations whenever discussing football and/or the club. Or you could go more hardcore at it and start bringing banners that demands free elections and reforms to change discriminating laws in Qatar and go to rallies outside the stadium on match days.
If you secretly watch matches on the telly and still can't help yourself from feeling joy when we win, I guess that's ok.
I left Manchester years ago and I don't pay for merch, and I rarely go to OT these days. Despite moving abroad and not having the same sort of football culture I still watch the games on TV and I still support the team/club and will do regardless of who owns us. I've tried to care less about football in general over the years but I enjoy football too much to give it up.Good!
Now you stop going to matches (if you used to do so), stop buying merchs and highlight what's wrong with sportswashing, discrimination, dictatorships and human rights violations whenever discussing football and/or the club. Or you could go more hardcore at it and start bringing banners that demands free elections and reforms to change discriminating laws in Qatar and go to rallies outside the stadium on match days.
If you secretly watch matches on the telly and still can't help yourself from feeling joy when we win, I guess that's ok.
This is the same situation for most fans, and the ones that can make a difference won't actually do anything. I just want to watch and support United in peace without being accused of supporting something I don't agree with morally anyway.
We have been let down by the UK government who didnt stop/ban levered buyouts in 2005,the PL/FA and other football fans who cheered the Glazers on.
Once the Glazers put us 700m in debt and took out over 1 billion it was always going to end up like this. Shame nobody listen to the fans in 2005.
Once the Glazers put us 700m in debt and took out over 1 billion it was always going to end up like this. Shame nobody listen to the fans in 2005.
The majority was probably against it 2 years ago and anytime before that but I think Saudi Arabia being allowed to buy Newcastle was the final nail. There's been a reluctant acceptance this is the way the game is going and it's looking more foolish to keep batting away buyers while others benefit massively.
Qatar world cup helps people adjust to the notion as well. The clubs value is probably beyond the scope of many now to actually buy and renew facilities.
The club has been strangled by the Glazers while they watch the asset grow overtime.
This is the dilemma really. Do we sit on our Laurels and preach good ethics whilst City, Liverpool, Newcastle and probably more and more clubs grow wealthier or do we join them while we can.
Would much prefer that the caf own your hypocrisy instead of giving a million excuses as to why this is different from city, psg, whoever.
Oil me up
The issue is that without being immersed in an environment – having your "boots on the ground" as they say - your understanding of it is going to be somewhat limited.
Case in point, I've visited Abu Dhabi multiple times over the last decade, so I've seen with my own eyes the new synagogues after the introduction of the Abraham Law; I know that I can now go out with local associates and drink alcohol following its decriminalisation.
I doubt that I’d know of these developments solely through the intermittent UK media snippets that most people here survive on.
You must think everyone is as shallow as you!
I would feel a bit hollow about anything we won under Qatar ownership.
no but I just know that what people say on a Forum and what people do are 2 different things.
remeber how outraged People were against the Qatar World Cup saying how much they were going to boycott it etc funny that considering it turned out to be the most successful WC there has been In terms of viewing figures.
We have the highest wage bill in the league and have spent close to 500 million over the last few years. We used to steal the best players from big clubs, let alone smaller ones: RVP, Carrick, Robson, Sanchez, Kean, Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, Van Der Sar..... and an endless list....
Spending huge amounts to win in football is nothing new, and United did it for years and still do, as did Liverpool. Both stealing the best players in the land from other clubs.
This whole idea that we are doing it 'the proper way', is a load of junk. How do you think those other clubs felt when United just took there best players at will? Was that fair?
Spending huge amounts to win in football is nothing new, and United did it for years and still do, as did Liverpool. Both stealing the best players in the land from other clubs.
This whole idea that we are doing it 'the proper way', is a load of junk. How do you think those other clubs felt when United just took there best players at will? Was that fair?
There's no proper way anymore at football. Just slightly less sh**
State ownership of the club would be the most extreme end of sh**
They understood the money came from legitimate noodle sponsors so it was easier for them to swallow
We do? According to which site, some sillywages.com or Spotrac?
Are you going to believe that City pay only 160+ million on wages?
Well according to the rules, yes it is fair because it's money entirely generated by the football club. Quite different to sugar daddy levels of unsustainable spending which is why FFP rules were introduced
But it is a good point that we have spent vast amounts on the squad even under the Glazers - it's well possible that Sheikh Jassim could buy the club and keep the level of spending around the same, it's not a given that we start throwing insane cash at the market like Chelsea, City, PSG because we don't really need to. Our issues has never been the level of spending, it's been decision making over what/who it has been spent on.
I didn't want to start a new thread to ask this question but how many states could realistically buy football clubs?
Everyone is panicking about every top club being owned by a country but if we suppose that one country has one club then how many would even be interested in doing so?
I can't see San Marino buying Southampton for example
Everyone is panicking about every top club being owned by a country but if we suppose that one country has one club then how many would even be interested in doing so?
I can't see San Marino buying Southampton for example
It isn't just the fear that some states may take over PL clubs, but more the "why would they want too"?
The PL is becoming the worlds 'super league' without all the restrictions intended to apply to the last attempt to introduce a European Super league model as a cash-cow. That is why British clubs would do well to stay clear of any attempt to resurrect the new Super League, (and it will 'come again') ...because they are already in it!
This is why many states want to be associated with a world wide crowd puller, like the PL... via TV (and eventually through Amazon, Disney+, etc). it takes them into everyone's home, gives them a 'human face' and sells... whatever it is they want to sell, through a focus that flatters (in most cases) the owners and takes attention away from perhaps their less human face!
Every club who can stay in the PL, even Southampton (should they achieve that) is going to be given the 'once-over 'by potential owners many including states, who want to buy something that even with all their money, they cannot get elsewhere.
Only our Government can ruin this future scenario, it depends on the levels of 'regulation' they are going to apply?
I wouldn't be as it would cheapen everything we achieve and having owners with a terrible record of human rights abusers would be hard to take.
I would rather no club was state owned
But if Qatar don’t get United, they’ll get a new front man and in a year they’ll be bidding for Arsenal, Spurs or Liverpool (and be welcomed by their fans)
Then United are fighting 3 state clubs, plus Chelsea, while still paying off debts
Things have changed. State clubs are winning. We either adapt, accept it and keep up. Or we fight it and get left behind
But if Qatar don’t get United, they’ll get a new front man and in a year they’ll be bidding for Arsenal, Spurs or Liverpool (and be welcomed by their fans)
Then United are fighting 3 state clubs, plus Chelsea, while still paying off debts
Things have changed. State clubs are winning. We either adapt, accept it and keep up. Or we fight it and get left behind
i would prefer Jim Ratcliffe. Better of two evils and surely better than the Glazers. All we need is to remove debt repayments and dividends.
I’d rather them than Jim. I can actually see Jim been an enemy of the fans of this club far more than Qatar.
You’ve seen already he’s more than happy for the glazers to stick around and hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory at Nice.
He’s not the owner we need. United fan or not. That part doesn’t matter.
The problem for our club is the price is so high all the “good, honest owners” are probably priced out. You are looking at fossil fuel people. Not a clean business obviously.
You’ve seen already he’s more than happy for the glazers to stick around and hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory at Nice.
He’s not the owner we need. United fan or not. That part doesn’t matter.
The problem for our club is the price is so high all the “good, honest owners” are probably priced out. You are looking at fossil fuel people. Not a clean business obviously.
This is exactly how I feel about it. In an ideal world, state ownership of clubs wouldn't be a thing. But Pandora's box is already open, and I'd rather see United compete at the top.
Thats what is kind of odd about having a red line for state ownership, a company like apple has probably more resources than a great number of poorer states, so if its just about resources that doesn't make sense and if its just about human rights issues, not every state is Saudi Arabia so that doesn't make sense
Yeah totally agree with this
I don’t like it but it’s much better than incompetent owners. The clubs revival comes first.
It's basically a battle between the emo fans of united versus the more pragmatic ones.
Then enjoy chasing top 4 every year. That's the reality when City swoop in for belingham. Hey, but at least we will have the moral high ground.
United have had no problems in the past spending money, they've spent similar amounts to City over the last decade, the issue is that we've spent poorly, rectify that and we're fine
Im ok with State backed gas to heat my home as the eco cult are in the process of destroying our home grown resources. So yeah Im fine with them owning our football club too, along with whoever else can afford to buy us as it is a select few with deep enough pockets.
Last edited:
The Bellingham that is on his way to Madrid? The City that have spent more or less the same amount as us over the past decade? People shitting their knickers over not having oil money is hilarious.
Ey?
- Status