You don't get paid based on your worth to society, you get paid based on supply and demand for your skillset. Top level footballers are extremely rare, doctors and nurses aren't. Thats a comment on the world as a whole not the football environment.
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
You don't get paid based on your worth to society, you get paid based on supply and demand for your skillset. Top level footballers are extremely rare, doctors and nurses aren't. Thats a comment on the world as a whole not the football environment.
If you think AC Milan are still a successful big team then I guess your levels of what is deemed successful and big is different to mine. I never said we will be a poor little club. I said the oil teams will dominate. We will no longer be at the top of the food chain. That is an empirical fact. Can we compete? Sure. Like Newcastle and Blackburn competed with us in our heyday. Heck we might even win the league. We might win the Champions league. But over the next 10/20 years the big boys, the teams dominating, the teams at the peak. Will be oil money clubs. Like the last 10 years has already proven.
Normally, I shouldn't give a flying feck about it because United are big enough to generate their own money so, most likely, Qatar will not really get involved too much, outside of building a new stadium and facilities.
They don't need to go the City route and blatantly cheat as they're buying the 3rd/4th biggest club on the planet.
However, like others have said, my interest will die down.
They don't need to go the City route and blatantly cheat as they're buying the 3rd/4th biggest club on the planet.
However, like others have said, my interest will die down.
No, I just found it funny that you used them as an example, given what they’ve achieved recently.
The big boys being who exactly? Take City out and who else are you talking about?
Newcastle + whatever other club is next to be bought out
I can't have spent the last few years openly criticising City for this and then glibly accept it as ok just because it's United. In my book if I thought it was wrong for City then it's wrong for United. I do really worry for the future of football.
Christ. So you’re worried about clubs potentially being taken over now. Never mind I can’t be arsed with this conversation.
Aslong as we don't fiddle the books I'll be glad to see the back of the Glazers in favour of Qatar. I don't really see the difference between Commercial enterprise bleeding us dry and a state exercise in sport washing. At least Qatar will provide proper funding for our infrastructure developments and not constantly take money out of the club.
The fans make the club what it is - the ones prepared to turn their back on the club are wrong in my opinion.
The fans make the club what it is - the ones prepared to turn their back on the club are wrong in my opinion.
Being the biggest club counts for little now, ownership is the key factor.
How can you say there is no difference? How can you not see the difference between greedy businessmen where it's all about money (no matter how bad that obviously is for United) and Qatar state ownership, where basic rights aren't supported? Rights, that you have had for so long that you forgot it is not to be taken for granted. Rights that many people made great sacrifices to achieve, even died for, for you! You sit there in your bolstered tv-chair, with tv-dinner, a canned pint, and an attitude that screams entitlement. Decide instead that the challenges of the world are NOT always and only down to the politicians. You have a voice too every day, not only at the polling stations every fourth year.........use it!
I think the Qatari bid is by far the best option for us at this point as they are the only ones that can afford the money to clear the debts plus upgrade the training and stadium facilities.
Those that are anti Qatar and Pro Sir Jim\INEOS seem to be ignoring or are oblivious to the fact that one of INEOS main benefactors is the Saudi Royal Commission who have around $1.9bn worth of investment aggreements with them.
Those that are anti Qatar and Pro Sir Jim\INEOS seem to be ignoring or are oblivious to the fact that one of INEOS main benefactors is the Saudi Royal Commission who have around $1.9bn worth of investment aggreements with them.
Yeah and pre PL you had rampant hooliganism in the country, black players booed in grounds and black/Asian supporters not welcomed in grounds. Women and children too afraid to go to football. English clubs banned for five years from Europe.
The introduction of the PL and sky televised football allowed these supporters to watch live football at a level they’d never done so before.
You had career ending challenges on the pitch go unpunished and there was no such thing as the Bosman ruling. So let’s not go pretending pre PL everything was hunky dorey and the game was in a great place. People love to criticise and blame the start of the Pl era as some sort of turning point for the negatives of football but it’s absolute bullshit. That era actually followed a terrible era for football and made so many things better.
But congratulations on being alive when Jordan and McQueen played for United.
A debt free club with a state of the art stadium and facilities? Money for transfers? Investment in the youth system and the womens too? After so many years of neglect or someone buying us with more loans and debt and keeping the glazers in. Someone who already owns a football club that has done nothing with them? That people (including players) want out. It’s easy in terms of what’s best for man United. The glazers and ratcliffe are toxic.
Qatar might surprise us all, you just don’t know what they have up their sleeve. They might be really really good for the club. If I was a betting person I’d say they’ll be a damn sight better than the glazers. They have also specified that they want to invest in the community too.. which can only be a good thing for salford.
Qatar might surprise us all, you just don’t know what they have up their sleeve. They might be really really good for the club. If I was a betting person I’d say they’ll be a damn sight better than the glazers. They have also specified that they want to invest in the community too.. which can only be a good thing for salford.
Excited to get the popcorn out when Qatar happens.
If every state owns all football clubs in england, wouldnt it be world cup every week?
I don't think anyone has any doubt about most of what you wrote. The club itself will be far better off than under the Glazers. The question most of us wrestle with is what cost that comes at.
Who cares enjoy the trophies.
State run clubs have reached the champions league final three times in the last decade. The only evidence you have for this is Man City, who have cheated and also got a transformative manager.
Plus honestly I don’t care. I have little interest in supporting a state run club. I’d rather be in the Europa League each year (which won’t happen with a competent football structure in place).
City and PSG have been pretty dominant in their respective leagues over the last 10 years, haven’t they?
I’m fine with a backed ownership and it is a norm. People don’t just amass super wealth without the backing of a State at some point. It’s a near impossible to see a very super wealthy individual to amass that amount of wealth without some form of government funding or interference. From previous owners of United having govt contracts for military uniforms to real estate moguls getting land for development at near pittance for the sake of job creation or urban development.
State ownership/backing is all around us and we can’t keep pleading ignorance. If it’s a question of foreign States? It become murky for me because their intentions come into questioning here for me.
State ownership/backing is all around us and we can’t keep pleading ignorance. If it’s a question of foreign States? It become murky for me because their intentions come into questioning here for me.
Yes, I’ve just said why City have been dominant. Take Pep out and put him at United with that footballing structure, do you think City would be so dominant.
PSG are irrelevant. Messi, Mbappe and Neymar in a league with Uefa Coefficient barely ahead of the Netherlands and Portugal. Nevermind both of those teams got to where they are in a non FFP era.
Interesting to see even on this forum the amount of pro Qatar posters and find it quite amusing that whilst City and Newcastle have rich owners when push comes to shove they want exactly the same for United.The game has gone to quote a phrase to hell in a handcart
Would I be okay? Yes, I think that I would be fine. Not sure about the migrant workers though..
Money doesn’t buy success on its own. United have had funds to build a successful squad but have wasted it on egos and it will take a reorganisation of the transfer policy to make a successful team.
Morals and football isn't a great mix.
Let's row back a bit from state ownerships and russian oligarchs etc.
Alcohol sponsored football for decades. This product is bad for your health, it is behind a lot of football violence, domestic violence and general violence. It's killed many people and many people have been killed by someone who's intoxicated. But football accepted it's money and promoted the product
Gambling companies have been funding football for decades as well. Gambling has destroyed lives of those who have a gambling problem and the innocent people who are associated with a gambler. People have lost their homes and livelihood. People have taken their own lives because of this addiction. But football accepted their money and promote the product.
Some Kit manufacturers have sweatshops and pay pennies to child labourers to produce high priced football clothing. But we would have all at one time wore a bit of clothing that wasn't morally made.
Football clubs around Europe including the UK have money going through their club from multiple morally questionable companies and our clubs accept the money and promote their product.
In an idealistic world we'd be owned by our fans and be able to compete with everyone. But it's not possible and we are at the mercy of billionaires who lets be honest, very few have got there being honest and fair and morally great. Most if not all have skeletons in their closet
Let's row back a bit from state ownerships and russian oligarchs etc.
Alcohol sponsored football for decades. This product is bad for your health, it is behind a lot of football violence, domestic violence and general violence. It's killed many people and many people have been killed by someone who's intoxicated. But football accepted it's money and promoted the product
Gambling companies have been funding football for decades as well. Gambling has destroyed lives of those who have a gambling problem and the innocent people who are associated with a gambler. People have lost their homes and livelihood. People have taken their own lives because of this addiction. But football accepted their money and promote the product.
Some Kit manufacturers have sweatshops and pay pennies to child labourers to produce high priced football clothing. But we would have all at one time wore a bit of clothing that wasn't morally made.
Football clubs around Europe including the UK have money going through their club from multiple morally questionable companies and our clubs accept the money and promote their product.
In an idealistic world we'd be owned by our fans and be able to compete with everyone. But it's not possible and we are at the mercy of billionaires who lets be honest, very few have got there being honest and fair and morally great. Most if not all have skeletons in their closet
the amount of money in elite football makes corruption unavoidable among clubs and the governing bodies. football is already rotten and i've become so cynical over the years that i'm more invested in my kids' team than the PL.
football to me is one the most important social adhesives we have. after all, any bunch of cnuts can play any other bunch of cnuts anywhere in the world and have the craic among themselves while still competing. the governing bodies do not give a wank about the democracy of the game, access for all, the heritage of the clubs or the opinion of the fans unless there's money to made from it.
the only sure thing about this takeover is that everything is going to cost more for the united supporter no matter who takes it over.
football to me is one the most important social adhesives we have. after all, any bunch of cnuts can play any other bunch of cnuts anywhere in the world and have the craic among themselves while still competing. the governing bodies do not give a wank about the democracy of the game, access for all, the heritage of the clubs or the opinion of the fans unless there's money to made from it.
the only sure thing about this takeover is that everything is going to cost more for the united supporter no matter who takes it over.
Yes, all that is 100% true.
It still doesn't quite work as an argument against Qatari ownership (that's what we're talking about here). Because there still is a fundamental and significant difference between being owned by shady businessmen who can't really use their ownership for purposes of state and/or aren't being used for those purposes by a state - and shady businessmen who absolutely can and/or are.
Thought this was going to be a long winded justification of welcoming back MG.
Pep wouldn’t last 5 minutes at United of the last 10 years. He wouldn’t have come anywhere near us to begin with.
I said “with that footballing structure in place”. Clearly not with the shambles we’ve had in the last 10 years. That has nothing to do with state funding.
You’re not even reading what I’m writing.
That footballing structure is the whole point. They’ve thrown an absolute shitload of money at the entire club top to bottom, normal clubs that have to worry about profit and loss cannot operate to the same level. State funding brings a lot more than just a bigger transfer budget.
Rubbish. We’ve spent an absolute fortune on hiring and sacking staff since Pep joined City. Imagine suggesting we can’t afford Pep’s back room team because we’re not state funded, we dropped £80 million in one go on Harry Maguire
Bloody 'ell I'm more entitled than eating tv-dinners!!
I simply want the club debt free and the Glazers gone. The only option on the table for that appears to be the Qatar bid.
The difference between the clubs you have mentioned, City and us is massive.
Abu Dabhi representatives took over a club that was not winning, they were a mid-low table team, which needed alot of money to get where they are.
For example, naming rights to Ethiad, shirt sponsor and all the fiddling to get them to competitive level.
United dont need that, we can attract the biggest shirt deals already, we can attract the players and commercial deals, they dont need to be Qatar deals.
We need the money to build a new stadium, training ground and everything else. We cannot do that without rich owners.
Right, so are you saying you prefer not being sold ?
I find this argument false. We have never spent what is necessary to build a successful team. Over time yes, but not in a single season which is what is required to catch up.
I'd be OK with competent and ambitious owners. State owned or not doesn't matter much to me.
They won it once, but they also won a champions league and reached was it three finals? Also won a cup double and were two games away from a quadruple that has never been done before. Personally I would much rather that level of honest achievement than City's plastic success and I think Liverpool have competed brilliantly while retaining their spirit and sense of identity. I do think that's commendable, even if it is Liverpool we're talking about. We did the same when Sir Alex had to adapt to Chelsea in the mid 00's, i don't see why we couldn't do it again.
- Status