Jezpeza
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 2,079
Saddened to hear this, Your opinion validates my existenceYou seem like a pleasant individual.
Saddened to hear this, Your opinion validates my existenceYou seem like a pleasant individual.
It's not about wether the Saudis are muslims, christians, jews, hindus or Buddhists, it's about not respecting common human rights in the 21 century. Death penalty/prison for criticizing Islam or leaders on social media, death penalty/prison for being raped by someone outside of marriage, death penalty/prison for being homosexual, not equal rights for men and women, no freedom of speach, no freedom of religion, no democracy/sharing power with the people etc. etc..... Their only motive for bying this club would be sportswashing, and I can't support that.I would not mind having the Saudis here to be frank as long as they have the clubs best in mind. Some people on here would be okey with having George Bush as our owner but if they’re muslim it’s a big no and they got blood on their hands. That’s xenophobia.
I guess this is the hard case. The Glazers are absolutely hated by United fans (and rightly so) - the fact they they are polling as twice as popular as the Saudis on a United forum tells you everything you need to know about how detestable that regime is and how terrible it would be if they owned the club.So frying pan or fire are the only two options?
It's nothing to do with their religion - Muslims have been the biggest victims of Saudi tyranny, whether that's the hundreds and thousands of Yemenis killed, and millions more put at risk of starvation, or the millions of their own citizens who are oppressed because of sectarian reasons. They're just the absolute lowest of the low when it comes to barbarism and tyranny.I would not mind having the Saudis here to be frank as long as they have the clubs best in mind. Some people on here would be okey with having George Bush as our owner but if they’re muslim it’s a big no and they got blood on their hands. That’s xenophobia.
Genuine question, dont Saudi have someone like Abramovic (to Russia)? Maybe still have a connection to Saudi government but not Saudi government? What if that kind of person wants to buy United?And to make this just like the previous thread on Saudi ownership here comes some one not understanding that the Glazers are not the US or UK government. Someone will repeat it in a few posts and we'll go around in circles.
Where are the rumours about the UK or US Governments wanting to buy United?Yes I would be happy. Get the Saudis in. Not like America, or the UK for example are governing saints. They are all murdering bunch of liars so who cares about their moral compass.
The UK and US Governments of course. Neither of them have been or ever will be linked to a purchase of MUFC. But you know that's some people's minds work, or well don't work.Who are these other potential owners who are 'as bad as' the Saudi royal family?
The Saudi government is the Saudi royal family.Genuine question, dont Saudi have someone like Abramovic (to Russia)? Maybe still have a connection to Saudi government but not Saudi government? What if that kind of person wants to buy United?
And those arms sales support many thousands of highly skilled jobs, including those just up the road at BAE Systems.I'd like to see the same energy people have against Saudis taking our club over as they do for our very own government selling £bns worth of arms to them.
Letting ed woodward run the club comes closeThe Glazers are parasitic cnuts, but at least they have not commited human rights abuses or war crimes (that i know of)
Don't get me started on BAE Systems.And those arms sales support many thousands of highly skilled jobs, including those just up the road at BAE Systems.
Great idea start a thread with a poll in the current events forum about it.I'd like to see the same energy people have against Saudis taking our club over as they do for our very own government selling £bns worth of arms to them.
Yeah if he was rich enough to fund transfer muppet sprees every summer, then yeah there's people who would worship W but those people are probably the same people who would also be fine with the Saudi Royals owning United too for the same reason.I would not mind having the Saudis here to be frank as long as they have the clubs best in mind. Some people on here would be okey with having George Bush as our owner but if they’re muslim it’s a big no and they got blood on their hands. That’s xenophobia.
People also forget that City’s owners are pouring their people’s money into a fecking football club. That alone is horrific from a moral stand point.There are few worse owners I can think of besides the Glazer's, but oil-rich princes who devastate their own people, is one of them.
That's a confusing take, ignoring the fact that sports club in general aren't lucrative or self sustainable and rely on patrons and public money, clubs like United get money from billionaires who in an attempt to amass even more money use a small minority of football clubs as billboards.People also forget that City’s owners are pouring their people’s money into a fecking football club. That alone is horrific from a moral stand point.
I want a football club without debt that takes care of itself money wise, you know, the way it should be. I don’t want some rich arsewipes spending Liberia’s deficit on a game of football, money that could and should be spent on the greater good rather than filling Pep Guardiola and co’s back pocket.
Okay, I thought Saudi had someone like Jack Ma or Abramovic..The Saudi government is the Saudi royal family.
And that Saudi royal family is in total charge of literally everything in that country. It controls everything including their oil and gas industry and money.
Having said that, they are a strong ally of the UK.
Yes, for City fans it must be like playing football manager on cheat mode.......It's very simple, even though the question leaves you with two unacceptable options, success under the Glazer ownership is in spite of them, whereas with the Saudi's it would be completely hollow, as it is with City.
What a ridiculously stupid take. It may have to do with Saudi Arabia’s horrid human rights record and treatment of women. If Shahid Khan had the money to do it, I’d be all for someone like him. Unfortunately not many even Khan can afford a club of United’s stature without a leveraged deal, so it will take a conglomerate or the UK imposing a 50 + 1 German ownership model.I would not mind having the Saudis here to be frank as long as they have the clubs best in mind. Some people on here would be okey with having George Bush as our owner but if they’re muslim it’s a big no and they got blood on their hands. That’s xenophobia.
How naive to think that MBS would have the clubs best in mind! The only thing on their minds would be to associate themselves (a murderous regime who systematically discriminate against women and religious minorities) with the great proud history of Man Utd in order to use the MUFC name / brand as a propaganda machine as a means to launder their reputation and distract from their poor human rights track record.I would not mind having the Saudis here to be frank as long as they have the clubs best in mind. Some people on here would be okey with having George Bush as our owner but if they’re muslim it’s a big no and they got blood on their hands. That’s xenophobia.
Did you read their forums?I may be wrong here and I’m happy to be corrected but the geordies seemed all in when it looked like the Saudis were on the verge of taking them over, I certainly don’t remember there being too much negativity towards it, why does it seem (on the outside at least) to matter less to their fan base than ours?