Florida Man
Cartoon expert and crap superhero
We would become the new City.
Worthless.
![LOL :lol: :lol:](/img/smilies/lol.gif)
We would become the new City.
Worthless.
Either I believe things will get better or I stay cynical and believe in you. I’m positive and open minded. You?Except that's not how sportswashing works. Other regimes have happily continued to do terrible things while using sport to gloss their image and Amnesty International have already highlighted Saudi Arabia's attempts to do the same even amidst increasing repression. The point of sportwashing is to distract from the bad things you do, not to act as a starting point for reform. It very specifically isn't a coupling of reform and image management.
Ye're either arguing that sportswashing is actually a positive thing or that sportwashing won't be used to do what sportwashing is designed to do. Both positions being at best extremely naive and at worst extremely disingenuous.
How does whether its public or not affect my point? I don't believe these people (assuming those involved are the same) are to be trusted so wouldn't be happy with the takeover if it happens.if it’s coming out then what’s the issue? Why even mention it if you aren’t going to say
Sharia law will be imposed on Manchester.They're going to turn Old Trafford into a mosque aren't they?
Sharia law will be imposed on Manchester.
I used to think quite highly of you Sultan. Not anymore.If any of these rumours are remotely true then I am putting a positive spin on the takeover. Very likely due to my deep-rooted affection for the club.
It's great and exciting to witness changes that are emerging in Saudi over the last few years. If anything, these changes should be supported. Purchasing United will be a massive catalyst for those changes. It will give the country and it's leaders more media attention either positive or critical and will add pace to the changes.
If we're going to be judging buyers of multi-million/billion businesses on their present and past conduct then there are a lot of examples of massive businesses owned by corrupt individuals and governments. I'm not saying this is ethically or morally correct but it's the way of the world and big business. Personally, I may not be morally or ethically upstanding as some of the posters in this thread, so you have my respect if you're disgusted and appalled by any prospective purchase of the club. You are better people than myself.
with the minaret popping straight out of the prawn sandwich executive boxes.They're going to turn Old Trafford into a mosque aren't they?
These regimes use sport to take attention and pressure away from the things that need to be reformed in their countries. Expecting that to then magically result in more reforms is wishful thinking. It hasn't happened it other instances and there's no apparent prospect of it happening here, which is why organisations like Amnesty decry rather than celebrate sport being used in this manner.Either I believe things will get better or I stay cynical and believe in you. I’m positive and open minded. You?
I want the Glazer's out of the club just as much as the rest of you, but the Saudis (thanks @decorativeed) are out of the question for numerous reasons - the majority of which have been well-documented in this thread.I disagree that we'd be selling our souls. Whether or not Glazer's have spent the money is not the question here, the question for me is how the club would be run. I mentioned earlier I couldn't be certain on how United would be run under Saudis. I'm just banking on them purchasing is for winning titles. So they will do their utmost to make this happen.
Whereas under the Glazer's, they have proven anything but. We have massively underachieved (after saf) and there are no signs of that turning.
I used to think quite highly of you Sultan. Not anymore.
Doc, personally I don't think any country should be allowed to purchase football clubs. Imagine being owned by any nation with right wing leadership. That said I suspect the vast majority won't care if there's 10 European Cups on the horizon and a state of the art Old Trafford.
with the minaret popping straight out of the prawn sandwich executive boxes.
I meant peanuts for the Beckham brand and what it would bring to Madrid money wise.
i read reports back then that Madrid had recovered the costs etc.
But putting that issue aside my original point of trying to shift Beckham today with how the club is run still stands.
Only if it has some Rusholme style shisha lounges with foot stools?Heh an Old Trafford designed in the style of a Bendouin tent could look funky. In er...Manchester.
And this is why politics and football should never mix.I used to think quite highly of you Sultan. Not anymore.
Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of our finances, but if they only take out 20m a year, then surely we have money to splurge a lot more than we are in market.That 20m in yearly dividends is gonna make all the difference between us not being successful and us being successful?
Glazer's haven't changed their failing chairman. So they are responsible. It's their club, their decisions.I want the Glazer's out of the club just as much as the rest of you, but the Saudis (thanks @decorativeed) are out of the question for numerous reasons - the majority of which have been well-documented in this thread.
Both LVG and Jose were considerably well-backed in the transfer market. Had they spent that money wisely (players who were not only a good fit for their respective systems but the club in general) rather than throw it at the next available big-name target who were only motivated to join our club for the promise of a huge salary, this conversation would not be taking place. Look at Pep and City, they spent around £200 million more than United in the post-SAF years, peanuts in the grand scheme of things, yet the difference in overall squad ability is beyond comparison.
We have spent exorbitant sums of money building the squad we have today. The kind of money that the likes of Wolves, Leicester, Spurs and a multitude of football clubs across Europe could only dream of spending yet somehow have a comparable squad (or shamefully better in many cases) to our own.
The Glazers, parasites that they are, cannot be held accountable for the failings of their chairman and manager(s) in the transfer market.
It is around 20m and since we spend around 330m on wages in 2019, we can't really spend a lot more than we currently do.Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of our finances, but if they only take out 20m a year, then surely we have money to splurge a lot more than we are in market.
Yep. Everyone will have to take thier shoes off to come in, cover thier heads, no pork pies or beers, halal only. Also congregational prayers at half time, especially if we're losing.They're going to turn Old Trafford into a mosque aren't they?
The Christian players will be forced to play without wages and be whipped when they have bad games.Sharia law will be imposed on Manchester.
No, they didn't take £1B out. I would advise you not just read shitty, biased blog posts and actually look at the figures yourself. Therefore the equation you are referencing is imaginary and based on a poor understanding of corporate finance.I’ll keep it simple for you... Since 2005 the Glazers have taken out over £1 BILLION from Manchester United.
In that same time Man City’s owners have pumped almost the same amount INTO their club.
Take the above equation and factor in our already large spending during that time and you should be able to figure out our POTENTIAL spending power.
Therefore an owner that does not seek a monetary return from owning Manchester United would unlock our true spending power. Spending power that we EARNED prior to any sugar daddy owner. Calling United a plastic club is laughable.
United generate revenues of around £650 million per year. Do you want to give this to a greedy owner or spend it on the club that earned it.
It’s quite simple really.
Billionaires with ethical integrity. Let the search begin.
I would imagine there are various degrees. E.g billionaires who don’t pay tax and exploit loopholes and workers rights (reprehensible) or billionaires that support systems of murdering homosexuals and abusing women (a whole different kind of evil). I’d rather have the former kind if I had to pick between the two.Are there any ethical multi billionaires? I mean being a billionaire isn’t exactly ethical to start with is it...
Even if the fans all chipped in and bought the club, we’d still have the odd barstool amongst them.
Great job shifting goalposts. At least you've stopped the ridiculous comparisons with Trump and US government.So by your logic, it doesn't matter. The same person can't own two clubs in the same league. So nothing to see here then.
Nothing to do with being brown and foreign. I’m just not a fan of Islam, it’s regressive, oppressive and damn right nasty at times when it’s mixed with government. No separation between religion and state is a bad idea.Bit of a stupid sweeping statement given the vast differences between visiting say Iran and Malaysia. They are all brown and foreign though.
Tomorrow, two months, next year,. The sooner the better that someone who is interested in football takes over this great club. The whole structure of this club needs to be upgraded from Youths to the Senior team. We need the right people involved from top to bottom, not Woody having the last say in everything. The stadium needs a lot of work also and i can't see the Glazers putting money into this in the foreseeable future.Well I guess we will know tomorrow when the NY stock exchange opens if all of these rumours are true or if they are just that, rumours.
If they are true then hopefully we would be run by people who want success on the pitch because let’s be honest, united are a shambles from top to bottom if you look at the board, manager, players, scouting and the stadium are all well under par for a club that is supposed to be the biggest in the world.
Unfortunately city have shown the way to go with a clear plan on the pitch that doesn’t really change from manager to manager. They have great training facilities for players at all age groups and their recruitment is far far better than ours and that’s sadly not down to just money but also having a clear plan. If the Saudis could bring this then great. As for all the political views on here we can’t control who owns the club even with all of the moaning and protests I don’t think any owner will really care what a few people think when you consider the fan size of United.
Tomorrow we will hopefully know who owns the club, but sadly we will still be a shambles of what was a great and successful club.
It's 20 m in dividends plus ~ 50 odd in loan repayments I believe. Along with complete trust in their useless minion Woody and a massive wage bill, easy to see why we can't spend a bunchObviously I don't know the ins and outs of our finances, but if they only take out 20m a year, then surely we have money to splurge a lot more than we are in market.
This is not a given, regardless of whether a club has unlimited money or not. See PSG for example, could anyone call their period under Qatar ownership successful?Hope they do not sell to the Arabs, but as one poster has already said, 4 billion is an amount I don't think the Glazers would turn down, surely there objective to buy the club in first place was to make money.
I really don't know how I would feel if it was taken over by the Arabs, I suppose we would become successful on the pitch, but what goes with it is unacceptable in today's world, UTD would become another club with distaste toward it, ok I know we already have it, but that's because nobody likes how successful we were under SAF.
The problem with determining what the Glazers want to do is that they are not all equal, some don't care about sport and would have sold their shares a long time ago while two of them care about sport and likes football, the latters are allegedly not really interested in selling their shares.Hope they do not sell to the Arabs, but as one poster has already said, 4 billion is an amount I don't think the Glazers would turn down, surely there objective to buy the club in first place was to make money.
I really don't know how I would feel if it was taken over by the Arabs, I suppose we would become successful on the pitch, but what goes with it is unacceptable in today's world, UTD would become another club with distaste toward it, ok I know we already have it, but that's because nobody likes how successful we were under SAF.
Definaltey, what were PSG doing before the owners came in? They were irrelevant.This is not a given, regardless of whether a club has unlimited money or not. See PSG for example, could anyone call their period under Qatar ownership successful?
The good years of Colony Capital, one of the wealthiest fund in the world. One of the most inept owners that football has seen.Definaltey, what were PSG doing before the owners came in? They were irrelevant.
Pogba would be made captain and would be given executioner powersThe Christian players will be forced to play without wages and be whipped when they have bad games.
That's it? No more comments on the issue of Saudis taking over?Great job shifting goalposts. At least you've stopped the ridiculous comparisons with Trump and US government.
It is around 20m and since we spend around 330m on wages in 2019, we can't really spend a lot more than we currently do.
Again, I'm no expert in our wage structure, but I remember reading that even though we pay the highest in wages, our wage % compared to what we make is actually one of the lower in the league, so although yes, wages do take a chunk out of our earnings (which apparently get better as the years tick over), we should still be in a financial position to spend money.It's 20 m in dividends plus ~ 50 odd in loan repayments I believe. Along with complete trust in their useless minion Woody and a massive wage bill, easy to see why we can't spend a bunch
That is absolutely right. I think United are at 51%ish right now. Barcelona, for instance, is at 66%.Again, I'm no expert in our wage structure, but I remember reading that even though we pay the highest in wages, our wage % compared to what we make is actually one of the lower in the league, so although yes, wages do take a chunk out of our earnings (which apparently get better as the years tick over), we should still be in a financial position to spend money.
I know we've spent quite a lot since Fergie has left, but we also didn't spend 'that much' while Fergie was here and the last two years especially, we've spent quite small in comparisons to other clubs.
As I said earlier, Villa spent 140m this year, thats around the same net spend we did in the last two years.
What I can agree on is, we have an idiot in charge by the name of Woodward who gets it wrong every time.
Do I want the Saudis in charge, no, but I also don't want the Glazers with their puppet Woodward here either.
Problem is, there really isn't another way out of this. (Again, that's not me saying I'd rather have the Saudis over the Glazers)