The glazers oil drill hasn’t stopped us from pissing more money up the wall than almost every other club in the last few years, has it? I’ve shared my views on this topic too many times. I’ve had enough of making the same points about why I don’t want this to happen, so, have at it my friend.
Are the Glazers preparing for a sale? | Saudis deny the news
- Thread starter RedTillI'mDead
- Start date
- Status
We won't win the league again under the Glazers thats the sad reality, meanwhile we are on course to have our noses pushed out of joint if City win the quadruple, we can't get left behind further than what we already are, like it or not we actually should hope that the Saudis buy the Glazers out.
Just look at them. Do you seriously want to end up as football's version of what is basically logo and a fake narrative wrapped around side that could win 4 trophies and people will probably be talking about something else? Fair enough if you are essentially a nothing club, but Man United are a British and football institution. It sickens me to say, but I'd rather be Liverpool, challenging and not quite getting there, than turning into a shell ran by the likes of the Saudis.
I've looked at them and the "fakeness" and "nothingness" is subjective and something fans say to feel better about themselves. But apart from platitudes the multi-billionaires haven't had a negative impact on either City or PSG or their history. If anything they have made them an institution as best they can and an injection of money won't have a negative impact on Man United.
That is to say being taken over by the Saudi's is not preferable by any means but that has more to do with political nature of the country rather than how much money they would put into the club.
The club I grew up supporting has already changed due to the Glazers. Whilst I do not want the Saudi mob (literally) involved it really wont be that much different than the leeches running it now other than, I assume, no debt. The club will still be a monstrous marketing machine with a thin veneer of a football team on top of it.
We already have a history and pedigree though.
City, as much as I despise them, also have more pedigree and history than PSG.
PSG in all of this are the most plastique of the bunch.
Won't happen.
How much was this supposed offer?
Doesnt matter sure it wont happen
Yeah, I really don't think it will.
Just imagine a £300m war chest every summer 
I have a Saudi Arabian Client who bought a house in London for £150m and the project I’m involved with is another £150m worth of renovations, extensions, forming basement etc. He wants the first £300m home in London.
What I’m trying to say is, these guys just love spending money and if that’s what it takes to get us back to where Manchester United belong, I’ll accept it.
What I’m trying to say is, these guys just love spending money and if that’s what it takes to get us back to where Manchester United belong, I’ll accept it.
They also love crucifying people... literally.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/69802...nishments-faced-by-criminals-in-saudi-arabia/
The S*n. Really?
I don't understand - are you saying that you doubt the veracity of these stories?
I've never called on any poster to be banned before, but this is very ban-worthy tbh. We are discussing footballing matters, and you bring up this shite? Shame on you.
But we don't challenge mate and we haven't even been close. Not advocating for the Saudis but the Glazer's are the worst thing to happen to this club by far.
For the millionth time: that's not because we're not spending money. Since Fergie's retirement, only PSG and City spent more. We have the second highest wage bill. We're spending our money terribly. And guess what? That might happen even under the potential crucifying, beheading, gay-hating overlords. All that Qatar money still didn't even buy a Champions League semi-final for PSG, after all.
Sort your post out. Silly link to make. Smells of prejudice, beyond disliking Citys owners (which I do) and not wanting Saudi owners (which I don't).
On human rights, no regime is without sin. The US in the Middle East, the British didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in India when they were powerful.
The Glazers bought Man Utd via a leveraged buyout (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians_at_the_Gate:_The_Fall_of_RJR_Nabisco) because they didn't have the money but borrowed money using Man Utd as collateral to finance the sale. Since then, the costs of financing that debt plus the money that the Glazers have taken out of the club have SEVERELY constrained our football. There is no chance of this getting any better under the current regime and we will remain where we are, a ways behind the very best.
The only way to get out from under this burden is to be acquired by an entity which has the money (last valuation was greater than 3 bn pounds) and will, at the very least, stop the transfer of money out of our club. Very few entities can do that, MBS is one of them. We should be grateful for such an opportunity.
The Glazers bought Man Utd via a leveraged buyout (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians_at_the_Gate:_The_Fall_of_RJR_Nabisco) because they didn't have the money but borrowed money using Man Utd as collateral to finance the sale. Since then, the costs of financing that debt plus the money that the Glazers have taken out of the club have SEVERELY constrained our football. There is no chance of this getting any better under the current regime and we will remain where we are, a ways behind the very best.
The only way to get out from under this burden is to be acquired by an entity which has the money (last valuation was greater than 3 bn pounds) and will, at the very least, stop the transfer of money out of our club. Very few entities can do that, MBS is one of them. We should be grateful for such an opportunity.
Didn't say it's cause of lack of spend in the transfer window did I? However it is because of lack of planning and potentially investment in terms of geting football people at the helm.
Remember the Glazer's have an accountant running our footballing philosophy since Fergie left. Blasphemy.
feck that.
I can understand some fans reluctantly accepting it because they believe nothing but football matters. OK. But telling me I should be grateful? No fecking way.
And can we please stop with the false equivalencies and whataboutism? It's really tiring. As if British colonial rule had any relevance to the current members of the Saudi royal family personally endorsing brutal executions.
Here's a thought experiment (I want to emphasise that I'm by no means equating what I'm comparing here):
Imagine an alternate universe where Adolf Hitler / Osama bin Laden / generic malevolent person is rich and is about to take over the club.
To posters who would welcome the Saudi investers, would this scenario be acceptable?
If yes, then fair enough. (I think someone mentioned Pablo Escobar on the last page.) All is fair in love and war, I guess.
But if you do oppose the take over in the hypothetical scenario, wouldn't that suggest your support of the club is affected by the moral qualities of the owners, but simply that in this case, the actions of the prospective owners are not bad enough to change your mind?
If the latter is the case, then the argument that "all governments are/were evil anyway" does not justify the stance here, because not all governments' evil doings are equally atrocious or contemporaneous.
Imagine an alternate universe where Adolf Hitler / Osama bin Laden / generic malevolent person is rich and is about to take over the club.
To posters who would welcome the Saudi investers, would this scenario be acceptable?
If yes, then fair enough. (I think someone mentioned Pablo Escobar on the last page.) All is fair in love and war, I guess.
But if you do oppose the take over in the hypothetical scenario, wouldn't that suggest your support of the club is affected by the moral qualities of the owners, but simply that in this case, the actions of the prospective owners are not bad enough to change your mind?
If the latter is the case, then the argument that "all governments are/were evil anyway" does not justify the stance here, because not all governments' evil doings are equally atrocious or contemporaneous.
Your thought experiment will not decide between the possibilities. Let's say that it is true that Hitler/Osama are inappropriate owners. That indicates that the moral qualities DO matter. If that is true, wouldn't one have to decide that only the most moral investor (Norwegian sovereign fund/ Bill Gates Foundation) can buy Man Utd? If so, no sale could ever happen.
Making arguments from extremes rarely results in lucidity.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm against it but may i ask if you have any problem with the fact the Saudis are backed and protected by the United States and the weapons they are using to slaughter Yemenis are made in America or Britain?
That's bad too.
I would think almost everybody here has a problem with that.
Fair enough.
This just wont go away. I sadly think there is a lot in it.
The PL,FA,FIFA,UEFA,British government etc did nothing to stop the levered buyout.
They should be ashamed.
The same thing could happen again to us or any other club.
There was an accountant running it before Fergie left too who the Glazers didn't appoint.
So whats your point?
It is a little hard to understand what you mean by "whataboutism". Isn't citing a (still alleged) brutal execution a whataboutism? If the question is the "currency" of it, aren't actions taken by current British forces that result in multiple (usually overseas) deaths sometimes suspect?
Alternatively, if the question is whether the sum of all actions is somehow acceptable - If many actions taken by the current British regime are welcome, isn't that also true of the current Saudi regime?
Given these complexities, how does one decide if a regime is globally acceptable or not? Well, the UN is one way and they include the Saudi regime.
Last edited:
Liverpool are currently top of the League and could still win it. They aren't as rich as us and yet they're competing with City just fine this season.
I get that you probably wank yourself to sleep at the thought of this takeover every night but do stop spouting nonsense.
A part of me is always tempted at the idea and how ridiculous the entire thing would be. The Saudis love showing off.
The world's biggest and most impressive stadium would be on the cards within a year of them taking over. Then, it's not as if they're going to sit there and just let the club spend it's own money. It'll be the clubs own money + another few billions of bankrolling cash to buy the best squad of players in the world.
The world's biggest and most impressive stadium would be on the cards within a year of them taking over. Then, it's not as if they're going to sit there and just let the club spend it's own money. It'll be the clubs own money + another few billions of bankrolling cash to buy the best squad of players in the world.
No way Glazers will match or come near what the Saudis can spend if they bought us.
All politicians are corrupted in their own ways, KSA is exactly doing what they ask for from U.S.A and their allies.
All politicians are corrupted in their own ways, KSA is exactly doing what they ask for from U.S.A and their allies.
No, because as fans it is not our decision to make.
No owner is perfect and many of us will have our gripes about many potential owners. But this thought experiment suggests there is a line. Somewhere. No doubt in a different place for each of us. But if that line is crossed supporting the club becomes untenable. That is what it suggests to me anyway.
So if Hitler bought the club, Im out. If OBL bought the club, same thing. They crossed the line. I cant define where my line is, I cant rationalise it. Its just one of those things, its personal and when it gets crossed I know.
I feel like the Saudis buying United gets pretty damn close to where I have drawn my line.
The guy running it before him was an accountant as well
One with an interest in football who actually did some good shit for the club. Ed's done nothing to be given the benefit of the the doubt.The guy running it before him was an accountant as well
He’s backed every manager to the hilt, the managerial choices have just not worked out, and more importantly we’ve taken far too long to bin them off.
Anyway, it’s hard to have a rational discussion about Woody on here so I won’t bother with that, or taking this thread any further off topic.
Glazer and wood man bad.
Saudi good.
How do you know Woodward doesn't?
Gill only worked in football for 6 years before taking over United. Woodward worked in football for longer than that before taking over.
Where has this nonsense idea that Gill is a football man but Woodward isn't came from?
Also what good shit did Gill do?
Just happen to be chief executive while Ferguson was manager i'm guessing.
- Status