LARulz
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 18,263
Why is this thread still going? Has there actually been any credible link or update
That is stupid past the point of naivety and into straightforward self-serving justification.Yes I agree and that’s why I want this to happen. That’s the point I’m making.
At the end of the day the Uber moral brigade can pretend not to support us anymore and that will affect nothing.
As I and others have said, the more ties they have to western culture and media spotlight the less major atrocities are likely to occur.
Yes, now I know they won’t stop altogether, but I find it very hard to believe that a state purchasing a club brand to ‘Sportswash their reputation’ would then proceed to commit horrendous atrocities in the public eye.
The latter would negate any benefit of the former.
In my opinion it’s a must for United and at the same time may marginally improve their behaviour and will go some way to them conforming to western culture.
So boring and tiresome reasing, listening and watching fans talk crap about our own players.This is very bad taste.
£25m wasn't peanuts in 2003 mate. And how did they make it back in a few months?No comparison at all.
The club was becoming more about Beckham than Manchester United and he was shipped out for peanuts(I think Madrid made the 25million outlay back in the first few months).
Has there been anything credible dismissing it?Why is this thread still going? Has there actually been any credible link or update
How so?All those in favor of this Saudi takeover, does it not bother you that any silverware the club attains at any point during their leadership will be illegitimate, tainted and ultimately worthless?
I don't see that as the case, I see the Saudi ownership as freeing the club from the shackles that are the Glazers. they are not buying a tin pot club, they are buying a club already showered in success.All those in favor of this Saudi takeover, does it not bother you that any silverware the club attains at any point during their leadership will be illegitimate, tainted and ultimately worthless?
Are we suddenly going to bribe match officials with death threats?All those in favor of this Saudi takeover, does it not bother you that any silverware the club attains at any point during their leadership will be illegitimate, tainted and ultimately worthless?
Think about it and get back to me, mate.How so?
Very good point. Only thing I have read that RA wasn't in Riyadh specifically for the sale of the club, which we all knew that anyway.Has there been anything credible dismissing it?
Thought about it and I'm back, still don't get it?Think about it and get back to me, mate.
I don't think they care one bit. We could be owned by Kim Jong Un and they would be perfectly ok with it as long as it buys them a shiny new toy.All those in favor of this Saudi takeover, does it not bother you that any silverware the club attains at any point during their leadership will be illegitimate, tainted and ultimately worthless?
It really wouldn’t be no matter what your point of view is. Let’s say the Saudis take over and let United «run their financial horses» - they don’t pump in money but allow United to spend what they generate, which is a lot.All those in favor of this Saudi takeover, does it not bother you that any silverware the club attains at any point during their leadership will be illegitimate, tainted and ultimately worthless?
We would become the new City.Thought about it and I'm back, still don't get it?
COMPLETELY different. City NEEDED their money. They NEEDED the books to be fiddled, we don't.We would become the new City.
Worthless.
We'd miraculously become a club with no history?We would become the new City.
Worthless.
Bingo.COMPLETELY different. City NEEDED their money. They NEEDED the books to be fiddled, we don't.
All we need is the correct people put in the correct positions of the club and we will then attain success, with the clubs own generated money.
Are City or Chelseas titles worthless?All those in favor of this Saudi takeover, does it not bother you that any silverware the club attains at any point during their leadership will be illegitimate, tainted and ultimately worthless?
I meant peanuts for the Beckham brand and what it would bring to Madrid money wise.£25m wasn't peanuts in 2003 mate. And how did they make it back in a few months?
I hope you don't say shirt sales because thats a myth that i thought had been well and truly busted years ago.
In my honest opinion, yes.Are City or Chelseas titles worthless?
You admitted it yourself. You do all of your thinking in less than a minute. It's not about the money. It's about becoming the sports franchise of a nation. One that isn't exactly Denmark in its social progressiveness.COMPLETELY different. City NEEDED their money. They NEEDED the books to be fiddled, we don't.
All we need is the correct people put in the correct positions of the club and we will then attain success, with the clubs own generated money.
You’re obviously entitled to that opinion, but most of the world would disagree. Both Chelsea and City’s brand growth are evidence of that.In my honest opinion, yes.
Unprecedented mental gymnastics.COMPLETELY different. City NEEDED their money. They NEEDED the books to be fiddled, we don't.
All we need is the correct people put in the correct positions of the club and we will then attain success, with the clubs own generated money.
United have spent close to a billion in transfers since 2013. You think you need more?We'd miraculously become a club with no history?
Or we'd be allowed to spend more of our own money we generate?
Worse, we'd be a club whose entire illustrious history gets tainted as it is used to bolster the image of people commiting terrible human rights abuses. That history is exactly why we'd be worse sell-outs than City, as well as a far more effective PR front. It's a big part of what they'd be buying.We'd miraculously become a club with no history?
Or we'd be allowed to spend more of our own money we generate?
Exactly, you only take dirty oil money when it’s the only option left.Worse, we'd be a club whose entire illustrious history gets tainted as it is used to bolster the image of people commiting terrible human rights abuses. That history is exactly why we'd be worse sell-outs than City, as well as a far more effective PR front. It's a big part of what they'd be buying.
If anything the fact that we don't need the money makes it worse.
We will be worse sell-outs than City? None of us have any saying in the club ownership. The Glazers can sell to who they please.Worse, we'd be a club whose entire illustrious history gets tainted as it is used to bolster the image of people commiting terrible human rights abuses. That history is exactly why we'd be worse sell-outs than City, as well as a far more effective PR front. It's a big part of what they'd be buying.
If anything the fact that we don't need the money makes it worse.
Fair enough, I would say most non United fans would disagreeIn my honest opinion, yes.
It really wouldn’t be no matter what your point of view is. Let’s say the Saudis take over and let United «run their financial horses» - they don’t pump in money but allow United to spend what they generate, which is a lot.
I disagree. The circumstances are very different.COMPLETELY different. City NEEDED their money. They NEEDED the books to be fiddled, we don't.
All we need is the correct people put in the correct positions of the club and we will then attain success, with the clubs own generated money.
It’s not like we can have a vote on the matter is it?? Our soul was sold long ago. If the Glazers want to sell, they can sell to who they want.I disagree. The circumstances are very different.
The Glazers are already spending money by the bucket load - £800 million since Fergie retired, only City are above us in that regard - so there is no need to sell our soul like City.
I don’t think a net spend of about 50m Euros in 2018 and 90m Euros this summer is by the bucket loadI disagree. The circumstances are very different.
The Glazers are already spending money by the bucket load - £800 million since Fergie retired, only City are above us in that regard - so there is no need to sell our soul like City.
Of course the club's history will be tainted. It will be directly used to gloss the reputation of people commiting horrendous human rights violations. That association doesn't dissapear once these new owners do, it's there forever as part of the club's own history.We will be worse sell-outs than City? None of us have any saying in the club ownership. The Glazers can sell to who they please.
I get that people don’t want to sell to Saudi (don’t want it myself), but the whole clubs history being tainted or gone is rubbish. The club will be here after the Saudis also. If you want to be angry, it should be at the people governing football in England that has accepted owners of all kind flowing into their clubs. In a perfect world all clubs should be owned by their supporters, as membership organisations. That ship has sailed long ago.
True, as fans we can do feck all about this.We will be worse sell-outs than City? None of us have any saying in the club ownership. The Glazers can sell to who they please.
I get that people don’t want to sell to Saudi (don’t want it myself), but the whole clubs history being tainted or gone is rubbish. The club will be here after the Saudis also. If you want to be angry, it should be at the people governing football in England that has accepted owners of all kind flowing into their clubs. In a perfect world all clubs should be owned by their supporters, as membership organisations. That ship has sailed long ago.
Club didn't sell its soul when the Glazers took over. It got stiffed.It’s not like we can have a vote on the matter is it?? Our soul was sold long ago. If the Glazers want to sell, they can sell to who they want.