Whatever you say. If my choice was conference north or sportswashing I know which one I’d choose. The one where my club still exists.
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
Goldie? Bit random but suppose everyone has an opinion!
£8 billion seems overpriced now but if they're looking long term it could be worth way more than that in 5-10 years time. Glazers "bought it" (took out what is essentially a mortgage on the club and made the club repay that mortgage) for £800m in 2005. 10 years later it was worth nearly 3x that. Now an estimated 5 to 6x that.
If a bidding war takes off then they're looking at getting at least a 1000% return. Plus whatever they've already taken out in dividends, fees, wages, bonuses etc. over the past 17 years!
Of course they made sure their initial "deposit for the mortgage" was paid back to them by the club many years ago. So their profit on the sale will be 100% of the sale value.
Yes they elected the same government but with a severely reduced majority, that's how democracy works, I cannot change that, but it won't stop me from protesting the things I think are wrong.
Like any country British people are not homogenous and for the same reason I don't blame or dislike the average Qatari or Saudi in the street, I blkame their governments for the laws that they enact.
Blaming populations as a whole doesn't work as they all want an think different things, but by your logic I can not complain about anything because my neighbour/postman/whoever may vote differently from me.
Do you really mean a dictatorship without freedom of religion, speach, sexuality, democracy where you get put in jail or executed if you openly dissagree with the authorities, have sex outside of marriage or where women and men are treated completely different is comparable with Apple, Ineos, Facebook or Musk?
This is like comparing cancer to hemorrhoids or a bad cold.
No one talks about the shite in their backyard, bro. Hypocrisy is the name of the game here.
That said, I don't think any one of us here thinks Qatar is an innocent nation. They have their problems and they must be rightly condemned for it.
But, some of these posters bemoaning human rights violations of oil-rich states on here, are quick to forget the millions killed by colonial powers over the ages.
Africa has been destroyed because of them being mineral rich. And most of those diamond companies are either American or British. Have they seen how those laborers in those conflict-zones are treated? How many are killed every day?
When it comes to Africa, even the media is mostly silent. Voices suppressed.
The next world cup is in America, right? How many media channels, spokespersons, social-justice warriors will raise their voices against America given that it is the only nation to be in a constant state of war since the World War 2 ended, either directly or as a supplier of arms, ammunition, overthrowing of governments etc.
Every time at the UN, when every country votes for an independent investigation into war crimes in Gaza, why does US always vetoes it to save their friends?
Is that not a bigger breach of human rights? Or are non-white people less human?
Let's see how many will call for boycott of the world cup in America.
Sheer hypocrisy at play here. And everywhere around the world. Palestinians armed with rocks against their occupiers are portayed as terrorists, but Ukranians armed with guns against their occupiers are shown as brave heroes.
The hypocrisy is laughable.
I do hope United can find buyers who are not controversial, though. But, I'm not going to suddenly develop a conscience if Dubai ends up owning us and claim to give up supporting United. I will sit back with pop-corn and enjoy the trophies.
Have you posted in the wrong thread? This is about the owners of our football club, not about the hosting of a one off event. The Qatar World Cup has nothing to do with it, and ironically you’ll find a lot of United fans don’t give a shit about the national team anyway.
Once again, because you didn’t respond to my last post, it’s highly likely that a lot of people who are against a state ownership are also against most atrocities going on all over the world. Russia in Ukraine? Horrible. China’s “re-education camps? Disgusting. Migrants dying to build stadiums for rich people? Shouldn’t be happening. UK selling arms to Saudi? Vile. Israel’s occupation? Illegal. Shall I continue?
I hold all of these views and regularly speak about them with family/friends. Now is it okay with you if I say I don’t want a state owned club?
So if we get back to a succesful club with lets say Dubai as owners, semi final CL, you say nahh not watching this, I prefer playing Wrexham?
Wouldn't be my first choice either for ownership. I'd rather have the least non-controversial owners as possible. But, if Dubai does end up buying us, I'm not going to stop supporting or following the club.
Well if it becomes some megalomaniacal oil state toy it stops being my club and becomes an entirely different entity so probably, yeah.
EDIT: In all likelihood it would be a case of me no longer watching football in general, however.
Goldie? Bit random but suppose everyone has an opinion!
£8 billion seems overpriced now but if they're looking long term it could be worth way more than that in 5-10 years time. Glazers "bought it" (took out what is essentially a mortgage on the club and made the club repay that mortgage) for £800m in 2005. 10 years later it was worth nearly 3x that. Now an estimated 5 to 6x that.
If a bidding war takes off then they're looking at getting at least a 1000% return. Plus whatever they've already taken out in dividends, fees, wages, bonuses etc. over the past 17 years!
Of course they made sure their initial "deposit for the mortgage" was paid back to them by the club many years ago. So their profit on the sale will be 100% of the sale value.
Goldie, Goldbridge, they are all false surnames anyway
Times had changed mate. United were then a top dog with near monopoly on the EPL, cutting edge facilities, a top side and the best manager in the world. We also attracted the biggest chunk of young fans. Also note that 2 of our major shareholders desperately wanted out after their fall with SAF on a bloody horse he tried to steal from them. That lead the club to fall right in the Glazers arms
Nowadays we aren't even the best club in Manchester
But condeming it is hypocrisy? How do you go about condemning it without being a hypocrite then in your view?
Oh Goldbridge! I thought you meant this guy
...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldie
Anyway, we've not been top dog for over a decade but we still increase in value. That is as much to do with the increase in value of the Prem in general. Not that potential investors will care about the distinction. Asset value is all they will care about!
No; not sure I’d be able to support of even enjoy watching United. There sre different levels of corruption and wrong but these sportswash owners are the bottom of the barrel. Like Abramovic, eventually the sh*t that they are propping up eventually becomes a problem as it always or should of been.
Like engaging a cheat code in a sport and celebrating as if you earned victory. SAF earned his success and the right to be able to attract the best players in the world. Klopp in a similar fashion earned the right to really enjoy his success.
There is nothing earned at city, PSG or Newcastle. Without the dirty cheat code money they are nothing and they win nothing. That doesn’t matter to some but it does to me.
Like engaging a cheat code in a sport and celebrating as if you earned victory. SAF earned his success and the right to be able to attract the best players in the world. Klopp in a similar fashion earned the right to really enjoy his success.
There is nothing earned at city, PSG or Newcastle. Without the dirty cheat code money they are nothing and they win nothing. That doesn’t matter to some but it does to me.
Let's be realistic. Which billionaire became one by being 100% clean? Hard to achieve that by doing everything properly and ethically. Our perception are often influenced by what the media portrayed and very often that is driven by other agendas to make you see what they hope you to see
[
I agree with the sentiments but there’s different levels of clean or unethical/corrupt practises.
There really is a “I don’t mind a Jeffrey Dahmer Level owner because when you think about it isn’t everybody sort of bad on some level” type justification being lined up by some.
Being a hypocrite means nothing, it’s a stupid defence from that that tone deaf moron Infantino trotted out. We all have things that we are probably a bit hypocritical on but being a hypocrite on something is actually not a defence of anything. It’s basically a tactic to deflect , trying to insult somebody (so they have to back track and shift the conversation) rather then rationally and intellectually challange their stance.
I agree with the sentiments but there’s different levels of clean or unethical/corrupt practises.
There really is a “I don’t mind a Jeffrey Dahmer Level owner because when you think about it isn’t everybody sort of bad on some level” type justification being lined up by some.
Being a hypocrite means nothing, it’s a stupid defence from that that tone deaf moron Infantino trotted out. We all have things that we are probably a bit hypocritical on but being a hypocrite on something is actually not a defence of anything. It’s basically a tactic to deflect , trying to insult somebody (so they have to back track and shift the conversation) rather then rationally and intellectually challange their stance.
No, but in truth I know it's most likely going to happen. One of the few crumbs of comfort would be the fact it wouldn't define us as a club, we're already huge they wouldn't have made us, thus instantly making us different to the other oil backed clubs. But it would be quite the pill to swallow.
I wouldn't be a fan of any county owning us, be it UK or US. But I do have a special dislike for Saudi given their standing in the Islamic world and how they are the worst representatives for it. So I would dislike then owning us more than other countries.
Totally indifferent at this point. For various reasons already mentioned in here and in other threads.
Oil me up.
Oh Goldbridge! I thought you meant this guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldie
Anyway, we've not been top dog for over a decade but we still increase in value. That is as much to do with the increase in value of the Prem in general. Not that potential investors will care about the distinction. Asset value is all they will care about!
I’d rather listen to Goldie’s opinion than the other clown in fairness.Oh Goldbridge! I thought you meant this guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldie
Anyway, we've not been top dog for over a decade but we still increase in value. That is as much to do with the increase in value of the Prem in general. Not that potential investors will care about the distinction. Asset value is all they will care about!
Yet those who had increased our value wants out. The infrastructure is a mess, the younger generation are supporting other clubs and our rivals are being owned by people who are far more richer then anyone can imagine. The Glazers came at a time when, we would dance into success unless there's a weakness in the team (ex defence after Stam left). Such weakness would often be quickly plastered over by a significant investment that the club could easily afford. Stuff like challenging to the EPL title let alone not making it to the CL qualification was unthinkable. Those times are gone and with clubs getting owned by richer owners the race for CL qualification let alone title is getting tougher and tougher. Honestly if I was Brexit Jimmy, I would stay in Monaco and away from Manchester. He can't possibly compete with the big guns and the resale value is not worth the risk.
Sod all the fans can do about the new owners. We cant pick and choose. Glazers were wanted gone as they were parasites, sucking the club dry. Im past caring on ownership. Radcliffe would probably be the better option but you cant try before you buy. Probably end up with oil money like our neighbours, it is what it is in this day and age.
Just be fair and non-partisan in your condemnation. And not pretend like the world will end if Dubai ends up buying us. No one will give a rat's behind. Arm Chair activism isn't going to change much. Might as well just enjoy the games and the club we love. I really hope we don't get bought by any controversial states or organizations though. Best would be is we could become a fan-owned club.
I don't see a big difference between corporate / individual ownership when it comes to eroding the identity of the football club unless the ownership is actively trying to impose their culture on the club which I haven't seen.
The only things I'm clear about is that I want us to NOT receive external funding and live by our own means, and that the owners have to be competent. The rest - middle east bad, western owners good and all that crap I haven't really formed an opinion on.
It’s not pretending the world will end, the league would literally be destroyed and not worth watching anymore.
Newcastle, city and United will be that far ahead. Literally cheque book against cheque book for every signing, United also have a lot more flexibility with financial fair play, would be like when you play football manager and cheat to have unlimited cash, it stops being fun.
Man City have already won 4 of the last 5 premier leagues.
If it happens to Liverpool as well we may as well have done a super league
True. Terrible thing to happen to any league.
But, maybe that will make the Champions League more interesting. I guess....
If you think something is wrong in whatever context then people need to speak out so it's brought into discussion. Whether that's from your arm chair or in the streets! If we don't then nothing will ever change.
That's a more general point on society as a whole though. It's not going to make much difference in the case of united ownership. Unless some benevolent billionaire (doesn't exist) buys us then we're just debating the least worse option. That's not how it should be.
As you said fan ownership should be what every club aims for but that dream died once the sale value of the club would require the disposable income of the entire fan base to out bid everyone else! Bit of an exaggeration but you get my point.
What should have happened many years ago is football clubs being legally designated as community assets and ownership structured around supporters clubs, local government, community groups etc. Basically how most of them started. But that ship sailed a long time ago so we're left who will play with us best.
People who are saying that being state owned, is the only option for us to compete with City, Newcastle or PSG.
We currently have a higher wage bill than City. We currently outspend them in the transfer market. This is from money that the club generates.
We don't have a billion quid in the bank to build a new stadium. Neither did Spurs, they borrowed 900 million from the bank.
Bayern Munich consistently complete at the highest level, without being bankrolled by a country. They have a professional set up, a thriving scouting network and academy. Good sponsors who put the money in. Look at Dortmund, why do the likes of Bellingham, Haaland and Sancho go there? Because they are a well run club and they do things properly.
United need to look at building a structure that doesn't need billionaires to compete with the rest, it is a lazy option that relies on mercenaries. We can build this ourselves, and for that reason, a bid from Jim Radcliffe would be supported by me, because he would immediately improve the structure of the club, and bring in people who know how to run a successful football club. We already have the coaching arm of Ajax, maybe we should one further and get their CEO.
We currently have a higher wage bill than City. We currently outspend them in the transfer market. This is from money that the club generates.
We don't have a billion quid in the bank to build a new stadium. Neither did Spurs, they borrowed 900 million from the bank.
Bayern Munich consistently complete at the highest level, without being bankrolled by a country. They have a professional set up, a thriving scouting network and academy. Good sponsors who put the money in. Look at Dortmund, why do the likes of Bellingham, Haaland and Sancho go there? Because they are a well run club and they do things properly.
United need to look at building a structure that doesn't need billionaires to compete with the rest, it is a lazy option that relies on mercenaries. We can build this ourselves, and for that reason, a bid from Jim Radcliffe would be supported by me, because he would immediately improve the structure of the club, and bring in people who know how to run a successful football club. We already have the coaching arm of Ajax, maybe we should one further and get their CEO.
Quite a lot do. Can we get a poll?
I understand the pessimism but it ain't going to take much for us to be competing again. We don't need a cash injection. We've thrown money at our playing issues since SAF retired but what has that achived? City's success isn't just all down to money (though its played a huge part). Its also the fact they've put the right people in the right places.
Put in a good management from top to bottom at united with owners not syphoning off money every year and we'll be competing at the top again.
If we do those things and it's still not possible in the medium to long term then you may as well give up on the whole thing because it won't feel any different to a competition of who can build the biggest golden dick.
United are Adama Traore just waiting to be lathered up, baby.
Absolutely no way i would like us to be owned by a state. Under no circumstances would i like us to be associated with oil money. It would genuinely sicken me to the core. The only genuine bidder i could stomach so far is Jim Radcliffe. The rest can f off as far as i'm concerned. The amount of posters that would be fine with Middle Eastern ownership is eye opening to say the least.
Some of you would be happy watching City and Newcastle lift the PL trophy year after year, while we comfort ourselves with our top 5 finishes and falling back on the fact that "hey at least we're not some sportwashing plastic team lulz" as we plunge deeper and deeper into irrelevance.
I would love nothing more than an altruistic billionaire who invests billions into the club without taking too much out, but unicorns don't exist.
I don't want Saudis, and thats where I draw the line. But I wouldn't be opposed to a Dubai/Kuwait/Bahrain-led acquisition. The grim reality is thats the only way we're going to realistically compete with the other oil clubs. And yes I appreciate the hypocrisy of us laying into the likes of City and PSG, but unlike them we've always been a proper football club with a real heritage. If being state owned is what levels the playing field then I'm all for it, don't care. And yes I know it sucks for the rest of the league, but I'd be lying if I said it bothered me. That's just my honest take.
I would love nothing more than an altruistic billionaire who invests billions into the club without taking too much out, but unicorns don't exist.
I don't want Saudis, and thats where I draw the line. But I wouldn't be opposed to a Dubai/Kuwait/Bahrain-led acquisition. The grim reality is thats the only way we're going to realistically compete with the other oil clubs. And yes I appreciate the hypocrisy of us laying into the likes of City and PSG, but unlike them we've always been a proper football club with a real heritage. If being state owned is what levels the playing field then I'm all for it, don't care. And yes I know it sucks for the rest of the league, but I'd be lying if I said it bothered me. That's just my honest take.
I remember a time when Arsenal were the only club capable of competing with us. Wenger was the hipster choice. He was a sophisticated man who knew how to speak loads of languages and knew continental football well. The guy could bring some kid from France who would instantly become a success and his football was mind blowing (sometimes far better then ours). Anything surrounding Arsenal at the time oozed excitement. SAF on the other hand was the mature choice. His changes were often gradual and felt slow compared to Wenger's. Not to forget his hard Scottish accent which made it difficult for non Brits to understand. It was croissants vs British full breakfast, Ferrari vs Rolls Royce, the rivalry between the two was electric.
Yet no matter what new trick Wenger was able to perform we would still come up on top. We might not win the league in a bad year but rest assured that United would throw money at the problem and eventually come out on top. Then Abramovich came at Chelsea and the stakes went even higher. Arsenal started losing out as managing the club efficiently became the norm rather then the exception and it all came down to money, something only Chelsea and us had. The game was over the moment SAF started sympathising with Wenger. I know people who know SAF well (I met him a couple of times myself and shared a pint or two with his brother) and I assure you, the guy won't sympathise with you unless he stopped seeing you as a competitor. He was right as Wenger and Arsenal vanished in obscurity.
United had been horribly managed in the past decade. Our infrastructure is a mess, our transfer record is laughable and our executives are in their first job in their respective role. Darren Fletcher went from an U16 coach to technical director in a couple of months which is astounding even if he was an astronomical player let alone for someone who spent most of his football career acting second fiddle to Carrick or Scholes. The guy is known more for the CL final he lost (the one his fanboys believe that he would have single handily humiliated Iniesta, Messi and Xavi leading us to CL success) then the ones he was in. Anyway although I am a huge advocate of good management built around meritocracy, even I have to admit that it can take you to a certain point. United needs loads of investment both in the short term (stadium, training ground, executive team, squad) but would also need huge investment to keep up as lets face it, the Abu Dhabi/Saudi club will keep investing to stay on top.
Interesting (and sad)/to see how many are perfectly fine for the club to sell it's soul just to get some glory. If only there was some kind of label for such supporters.
The funny thing is that they back a 'United' fan who is a Chelsea season ticket holder and a righteous man who backed Brexit because new EU anti pollution laws would have stopped him from polluting Middlesbrough and Scotland. He even threatened to close shop if such rules were pushed on his industry. But hey, don't worry about his health. The guy lives in tax free Monaco while those living near his factories enjoy the fruit of his work.
What a great man Jim Ratcliffe is.
Yeah I really don't get the appeal of Radcliffe. I could understand it when it looked like he was the only tenuous option to prize the club away from the glazers months ago, but now we have options I just don't see him being appealling. He doesn't strike me as the type who will look to invest into the club without getting anything back in the short term. I'd imagine it would be similar to how we'd look under the glazers without the leveraged buyout.
For me he's a richer version of Knighton. Don't take me wrong very few rich people are decent. However if I have a choice I'd go for the really wealthy. The Saudis/Abu Dhabi would probably buy Ineos on loose change.
- Status