Did he say he'd stay posting in the forum?
Couldn't you say the same about opponents of the Glazers?
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
Did he say he'd stay posting in the forum?
Couldn't you say the same about opponents of the Glazers?
Keep reading. Funnily enough it turned out to be invented hysteria... Shocked face
He did say that, yeah. He said he’d stay and constantly voice his disapproval at the club while hoping non state teams won trophies.
He’s since elaborated on it a bit today and reeled it in a bit tbf. Said he would actually draw the line at Liverpool and would at least see how the club was run.
You could say that if they were cheering on other teams.
I respect anyone who chooses to step away from identifying as a fan if they disagree with the ownership, I’ve done so with the Glazers and I will not gloat or try and create division if 92 Foundation buys the club - I can promise you that.
In fact I will actively try to ease tensions and hope the most staunch anti Jassim posters on here give the ownership a chance, and I won’t call them hypocrites if they do - reality is fluid and it’s just football.
For me, I have been DESPERATE for 18 years for the club to be free of the Glazers. I am literally so excited to have a Utd without them I can barely put it into words.
I don’t care about star signings, or any of that, if it was Brexit Jim who was removing them I’d want him to win.
We deserve to be excited if they go, it’s sad to see so much division and friction at a time when we could Unite and at least give the new ownership a go.
Last edited:
Here are a few viewpoints that people might hold:
Supportive of state-backed ownership: Some fans believe that state-backed ownership can bring significant financial resources and investment to a club, which can help improve its competitiveness and success on the field. They argue that the benefits of increased funds and infrastructure outweigh the potential ethical concerns associated with such ownership.
Opposed to state-backed ownership: Others have ethical and moral concerns about state-backed ownership, particularly when it involves countries with poor human rights records or controversial political systems. They argue that football clubs should maintain their independence and not be influenced or controlled by external political agendas.
Neutral or undecided: Some fans may not have a strong stance on the issue and fall somewhere in the middle. They might consider factors such as the intentions and actions of the potential owners, as well as the potential impact on the club's competitiveness and financial stability.
Come on mate, i haven't reeled anything in. I clarified the following:
- I will not be "cheering" Liverpool
- I am not virtue signalling
Sorry mate, dunno what the issue is now.
You specified that you wouldn’t want Liverpool to win a trophy over Utd, and you said about Jassim, ‘Time will tell’, which I took to mean that you’d at least see how the club was run.
That was ‘reeling it in’ from what you said initially.
But it’s all good mate, no bother to me and I wish you all the best with however it works out with the ownership. Hope Utd are doing better as a club and that you’re enjoying it / happy.
My "time will tell" comment referred to whether Jassim's bid is a veil for state ownership or if it is a private bid not associated with sportswashing. If the latter, then I will be immensely relieved.
The reeling in i did was not of my own post, but of the hyperbole it generated (not directed at you, just in general).
Regardless, i fully agree with the last paragraph and wish the same to you. One thing i think we can all agree on is that United fans deserve much better ownership than what we have gotten since 2005 and perhaps what the future seems to hold for us. I truly hope we can one day unite as a base around a non-controversial, non-toxic ownership.
What is it like in Life, answer E (as in multiple choices), All of the above?
What if Jassim has put together a Private/Public consortium?
What if we just read the posts and try and understand his stance. Why do people need to dismiss it or dissect it?
Well, again the very idea of actively supporting "non-ME owned clubs" is completely alien to me, so I can't comment on that.
But remaining on the Caf for a non-Qatar poster (let's keep it simple) isn't strange at all: for me, personally, I'm a football history nerd: I enjoy the stuff that goes on in the draft sub-forum, for one thing. Some of the best posters involved with that over the years are not/have not been United fans. I also enjoy reading (and I occasionally post there too) the non-football parts of the Caf. It would make no sense to me to quit the Caf just because I'm firmly against a state takeover.
I would stay away from certain threads, sure - but the Caf isn't exclusively for people who support the owners of Manchester United. I mean, this is pretty obvious - no?
No, obviously not.
It would be the end of my - let's say - active support for Manchester United. That doesn't mean I would start to actively follow another club, and certainly not any supposedly "non-tainted" club on the same level.
Manchester United is the only football club I've ever supported. I never had a choice, you could say. I was pretty much indoctrinated by older relatives. I "supported" United well before I had any concept of what that actually meant.
I won't ever care about another football club in the same way.
(Which is why this thing is very much non-trivial to a lot of people.)
No idea why you are getting stick for a very hard decision. You’ve been very clear and I’m sorry yo have to go through that.
The 'Supportive' side can be simplified quite considerably to just: Money.
There's really no other benefit, you lose many many things but it is undeniable that if you are backed by a country you will blow any normal team out of the water monetarily.
I personally don't think anyone is undecided, there are many who are not happy/uncomfortable but their minds have been made up long ago.
At least you can be vocal about your opposition and not bend over and take it. If Qatar buys us I‘d want to see protests and banners, rainbow shirts everywhere etc. But that won‘t happen. Most fans will just stick their heads in the sand.
The question is what will you do? I know what I‘ll do.
It’s worse than sticking their heads in the sand. A lot are actively pushing back against those who don’t want Qatar and trying to find ways of catching them out.
Of course it’s wrong but the genie is out of the bottle and if we want to compete at the highest level then I’m afraid this is how it’s going be.It’s business not football.
Not football, so you will stop supporting it?
I disagree, I actually think it will happen if 92F win.
However, I think Ratcliffe / Glazers will be announced shortly so if that’s the case you can celebrate about that rather than complain about Qatar.
I won‘t have to drop my support, so yes that is something.
There might be some small scale opposition at Old Trafford if 92F win, but I would not expect any big protest since the vast majority will just be happy to see the back of the Glazers
But if people are against it then showing up at OT to protest is definitely the best way forward rather than the 'Im going to stop supporting the club' stuff
I more meant that if 92F win I think there will be a constant visible LGBT support on the stands (in a positive way) and IF Qatar have some kind of HR scandal, people will voice support against it.
I didn’t mean that people will just immediately protest the owners.
Every local I know is desperate for Jassim to takeover.
They should know better:
-the UAE ownership of City has not been good for Manchester.
-allowing to be taken over by a repressive regime is bad for the club‘s image
Whatever we win after a Jassim takeover will be tainted, just like 115 charges FC‘s wins. You‘ll never fully enjoy it with all your heart. It will be fake.
Well that’s your take, but it’s not the take of a lot of locals who’ve been regular match goers for decades and also a lot of fans Worldwide.
But we can agree to respect each other’s opinions and just hope that the club improves the awful way it’s been being run.
Last point we agree on.
So you‘d be perfectly happy for us to cheat our way to titles like City is doing?
Nope.Middle Eastern ownership doesn’t equal cheating mate.
City chose to cheat, Utd could cheat with the Glazers if the Glazers wanted to pump money into the club.
Indeed, it’s perfectly possible that Ratcliffe could cheat FFP if he’s so inclined.
Utd have a lot less need to do what City did as we’re a huge club that generates A LOT of money.
I don't care if we're backed by Sith Lords or Darth Vader himself. Just get the American rats away from this club.
So you think Qatar won‘t cheat? Dream on, they cheated at PSG and hit a dead end.
Middle Eastern ownership doesn’t equal cheating mate.
City chose to cheat, Utd could cheat with the Glazers if the Glazers wanted to pump money into the club.
Indeed, it’s perfectly possible that Ratcliffe could cheat FFP if he’s so inclined.
Utd have a lot less need to do what City did as we’re a huge club that generates A LOT of money.
Now they want to buy us and do it. We can‘t buy MBappé without cheating: that is the reality.
Dodgy ground accusing people of cheating before they even own the club.
And Mbappe will not be coming to Utd mate, he’ll be off to Real.
Why would they? City, PSG and few other clubs had feck all 'actual' revenue, they had to pump up their fake sponsorship deals to inflate their revenue.
Nothing of that sort is needed for ManUtd, they don't even have to put money into the club. Clear the debt as part of the take over and the money we generate is good enough to invest in the squad.
If their neighbours in Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia are getting all the plaudits I highly doubt they wouldn't resort to cooking the books to attempt to rectify that. It's likely we'll be seeing Qatar Airways on the front of our shirts very soon if their bid is successful, with a few other questionable sponsorships along the way.
What?
It amazes me the amount of people that still struggle to get this point through their heads.
For the city, not 115 Charges FC. UAE got a lot of property for next to nothing. Major corruption.
But you claimed their input has been bad for the city; it hasn't. I'm not getting into semantics over how much or little they paid for property; that happens all over the world in major cities. They've rejuvenated some of the most deprived areas of the city.
Don't make stuff up because it weakens any point you were trying to make. What you claimed is simply untrue.
Buying up property for next to nothing and turning it into fancy condo‘s is not good: there is a housing crisis and UAE is allowed to reap profits while paying a fraction of market value.
You just claimed this is a good thing.
At this stage, I'd just like new ownership.
It's all become rather exhausting and is beginning to feel like some sort of Orwellian psychological torture that will never end.
It's all become rather exhausting and is beginning to feel like some sort of Orwellian psychological torture that will never end.
That isn't exclusive to UAE states. All big countries are snapping up cheap real estate. The housing crisis isn't being caused solely by UAE states; that's a very narrow minded, naive view.
Also I've not claimed that's inherently good. You made the claim UAE interference in Manchester is a bad thing, as someone who has lived in Manchester for their entire life I can assure they have done some good. I'm not claiming there isn't egregious and insidious reasons behind it, but as a local they have improved some of the most deprived areas of the city.
I think his point is sound - it's not like there weren't other bidders who wanted the land. The issue that has been raised is it looks suspicious that the council decided to sell the land with a) unusually long lease holds and b) below market rate - there have been multiple articles on it. There's also an issue with not being able to see the profits from the scheme they set up with the council which the BBC reported on.
I don't doubt this is issue is non Manchester specific (see London and Russian money for example) but this is a very valid point given the thread title and that one of the big problems with state ownership is the states are able to easily create political leverage through these kinds of investments.
I read what you say and I think it’s a fair synopsis but one that’s specific to the thinking of supporters of huge football clubs.
However, as a supporter of a tiny little team / bloke without a vested interest in any particular ownership outcomes, I think I probably concur with the vast majority of the public who, if pressed on the issue, can’t fathom why some supporters of big clubs bray like donkeys about their ethical stance over the possibility of an Arab nations wealth fund owning the club they support, while steadfastly doing nothing at all to resist the sponsorship from Arab nation owned businesses that their clubs have been happily shovelling into their accounts for decades.
The comically jingoistic amongst the Arsenal supporters tickle me the most, ranting about Arabic ‘sports washing’ while their own team plays out of a stadium sponsored heavily to wear the name ‘The Emirates’ and they all wear that logo on the shirts they buy from their club shop. . They must surely be studiously looking the other way to have not noticed?
I‘ve never had enough interest to drill down into it, but I’m guessing that it’s probably quite common for clubs across the top echelons of football to be sponsored by supposedly state controlled enterprises - banks, airlines, holiday companies, communications & tv companies etc?
iirc didn’t United used to coin it in from a longterm strategic partnership with Saudi Telecom or similar? If so then I don’t remember any protests about that (though I’m happy to be corrected)?
As a supporter of a lower league club, who’s only chance of washing related sponsorship would be a small add in the programme paid for by the local laundrette, it’s not something that I really need to think about, other than for an occasional cheery chuckle at the irony of the critically deluded wearing shirts badged up with ME Co. logo’s while chunnering on about so called Arab sports washing ;-)
FYI Bayern just decided not to extend their deal with Qatar Airways. The fans kicked up a fuss about human rights issues.
Bayern did the right thing. We should as well.
Bayern did the right thing. We should as well.
- Status