It's a hard decision to be honest. From one side you see the bottomless pit of money the other teams have at their disposal but on the other hand we think that we shouldn't be owned by something we have been mocking or despise until now. I think Manchester United still doesn't need to be state - backed owned and its global power is still too big that we don't need that kind of money. If the money comes that way, I'm sure they would be put to use but we can make a first class team without oil money. Also I just read that the Saudi government announced that it will back private bids for us or or the Anfield team.
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
In an ideal world no but I know it's best for the club in terms of winning trophies and just generally move to the 21st century in some of the areas. Would be really sad if after finally seeing Glazers gone we end up with new owners just like them.
Good riddance.
It's been quite strange to finally get the news we've all been waiting for, for the cnuts to feck off. A part of me is beyond disgusted with how much money they'll make from sabotaging the club for all these years. And another part is worried by the prospect of ownership that will leave one apathetic about all things United.
Seems it's quite common for people to worry about Newcastle's and City's financial might. And yet, Liverpool have very recently shown that if you have competent people at the helm you can compete. The main problem we've had throughout the era of the cnuts owning the club is mind-blowing incompetence. We've spent money terribly, chased losses, and the structure of the club from top to bottom is an anti-meritocracy.
Granted, it's impossible to see what kind of a non-subhuman entity can handle the enormous valuation of the club and the debt that comes with it. One would hope that each prospective buyer would factor in the neglected facilities in any price, but for a sport washing exercise or some yank consortium money game the cnuts may just have plenty of interest at an insane valuation.
A debt free United does not require reserves such as City's or Newcastle's to compete. A debt free United requires a hiring policy of best in class and for the club to be free from pillaging. Through the club's own revenues it can invest in developing the facilities.
For fans it is more a question of whether it is enough to be competitive or if they want to have a financial advantage over all others, no matter at what cost. Although, it is all academic as we're just waiting to hear what money people the other money people choose, without any say in the matter. This should really bring the fanbase organised together around some shared demands (however likely or unlikely it is to yield results) but it seems fans are so split in what they want.
Seems it's quite common for people to worry about Newcastle's and City's financial might. And yet, Liverpool have very recently shown that if you have competent people at the helm you can compete. The main problem we've had throughout the era of the cnuts owning the club is mind-blowing incompetence. We've spent money terribly, chased losses, and the structure of the club from top to bottom is an anti-meritocracy.
Granted, it's impossible to see what kind of a non-subhuman entity can handle the enormous valuation of the club and the debt that comes with it. One would hope that each prospective buyer would factor in the neglected facilities in any price, but for a sport washing exercise or some yank consortium money game the cnuts may just have plenty of interest at an insane valuation.
A debt free United does not require reserves such as City's or Newcastle's to compete. A debt free United requires a hiring policy of best in class and for the club to be free from pillaging. Through the club's own revenues it can invest in developing the facilities.
For fans it is more a question of whether it is enough to be competitive or if they want to have a financial advantage over all others, no matter at what cost. Although, it is all academic as we're just waiting to hear what money people the other money people choose, without any say in the matter. This should really bring the fanbase organised together around some shared demands (however likely or unlikely it is to yield results) but it seems fans are so split in what they want.
What's that got to do with Man United? The UK as a state doesn't own us.
People keep saying this, but there was no oil money around at the time.
If United wanted a playedr, basically they got that player (with exceptions, of course), no one in 90s and early 00s could compete moneywise. Doesn't mean we spent the most every season, but the money was there if needed.
Now with City, Newcastle and PSG state owned the stakes have been upped so high very few, if any, non-state funded teams will be able to compete in the future.
I agree with your point too
Perhaps the inhabitants could try being less contemptible
Depends on the state - but since the only states who would be interested are dictatorships - so NO!
Yes.
Fix the stadium, bring me Mbappe and Bellingham and a striker and RB - and I don’t care.
Fix the stadium, bring me Mbappe and Bellingham and a striker and RB - and I don’t care.
You should - clearly all you have to do is vote for the party you don't like - and you will lose happily
Agree morals went out the window when city found cheat mode. People talk about morals, more imp-particular us from western countries. But lets not forget our past and how we built our empires on slavery and wiping out Indigenous populations to serve our needs. Just because we believe to the moral high ground. The Arab countries have a dubious present, but why won't they change? Lets not forget, an ex american president tried an attempted coup, but we would be ok with an american investment group who would use us to make a profit as opposed to a state run club who will invest in us. People were happy about Apple, let that sink in. A company that have implications to slave labour.
Slightly premature. The Glazers have said that they exploring various options, ranging from a strategic partnership to a full sale of the club. The latter would see them gone, but the former would mean that at least some of them remain in place and in control of the club, with a new investor joining them.
Just about anyone other than oil rich arseoles
Yeah would put up with a dirt cheap number 9 with Mbappe but that's pipedreams haha
I’d always support UTD no matter who the owners are and it’s the way football is heading anyway, imagine Dubai buying Liverpool and they continue to hoover up trophies along with the other oil clubs, it’s ok though, we can console ourselves by winning the moral cup every year
I have no idea anymore. I wouldn't be particularly keen on Coca Cola or Jeff Bezos either so I dont see any great options. I feel a bit resigned to hating whoever winds up in charge.
It certainly won't be a club
No, but it's also clear that football seems to be heading this way. I may ultimately just lose interest in it all. Where's the achievement in winning when it's a result of state funded sportswashing?
I wear a clothes made by children, use a phone made by modern slaves who work in awful conditions, live in NATO country which killed thousands of people but this is where i draw a line. Give me some honest billionaire who is a member of Greenpeace and gives all his money to poor children.
And yeah, i don't mind that Saudi money IS already in the club. But to give them full control is a no go.
Or something...
And yeah, i don't mind that Saudi money IS already in the club. But to give them full control is a no go.
Or something...
In part I agree. But also way back when, we could bid for players (having the cash) knowing that the selling club would need the money.
With TV deals going ballistic it armed the ‘lesser’ clubs, enabling them to not only refuse bids for players but also allowing them to spend which has seen the EPL far more competitive since it’s inception.
sport science also has a lot to answer for…which is standard across the board in todays game
Yeah that last paragraph is why they are never the right choice ethically,however do demand the best in class with club structure
Again you’re saying this and again you’re ignoring PSG’s existence and the many years of Garry Cook at City
Nah, I think it's far more likely that they sell up, and that potential investors would prefer full ownership.
Amazes me that's allowed with them owning Newcastle but obviously there is some loophole which gets round it
I'm not ignoring the Gary Cook years but it was their owners who ensured that the Barca backroom guys would be in place for when Guardiola joined City. I don't know enough about PSG's staff to make any comment on them.
So was Garry Cook best in class? Is Leonardo? PSG are a total shit show still, only having success because they blow everyone in France out of the water.
No.
I’ll probably not be a United fan if it happens. Football’s charm is gone if it happens imo. We’ll just be another cog in another machinery who cares nothing for football at all.
for me it’ll be a table of oil-men / states battling it out who can put the biggest bill on the table. Hollow and soulless.
I’ll probably not be a United fan if it happens. Football’s charm is gone if it happens imo. We’ll just be another cog in another machinery who cares nothing for football at all.
for me it’ll be a table of oil-men / states battling it out who can put the biggest bill on the table. Hollow and soulless.
Well put it this way I would trust that sort of ownership more than Ratcliffe and his failed right hand man in Brailsford that's for sure
Who mentioned Ratcliffe? Deflection won’t help you here, what you’re repeatedly stating is outright wrong, and you keep just ignoring that fact and post the same thing again 4 pages later.
So you are telling me it's wrong what Julien Laurens a respected French journo is saying about him then. I don't think so somehow but if you have something to back up argument then be my guest.
You might have to post what he’s said, given I never mentioned it. Who’s being referred to with “him” even?
What he said is in that video the guy from United People's TV put out which was shared by someone in the Ratcliffe thread.
Last edited:
Again, what does it say. Don’t deflect.
Says he made some very bizarre decisions
Who?
Dave Brailsford
What’s he got to do with the price of fish?
He was put in place by Ratcliffe as his right hand man and like Laurens and another French football expert says he made some odd decisions
- Status