Are the Glazers preparing for a sale? | Saudis deny the news

[Adebesi]

Its amazing the breadth of opinion, and how opinion changes from one year to the next, about Woodward. Not necessarily saying any individual fans are inconsistent in their opinion on him because I havent kept track, but certainly as a fan base, the opinion changes a lot. There have been summers he has been lauded as a hero and where the criticism that has been made has been that he loves throwing money around. Remember this?


Then at other times there is this other, completely contradictory narrative, that seems to be in the ascendancy at the moment, that in fact we are run by misers who wont spent their money. Beholden to my inner masochist I sometimes (more often than I care to admit) watch The United Stand, and Goldbridge talks about us like we dont spend anything, that we show absolutely no ambition at all in the transfer market, that all our actions are motivated by saving money.

To add a bit of relevance to this post, one thing you can say about the Saudis is they will up the ante in terms of expenditure. But I dont think anyone doubts that.

 

[TRUERED89]

You are an online bully, myself and my colleagues at GMP will be speaking to the mods and get your details, expect a visit, perhaps you can give me some of your abuse then!

What exactly are you going to charge him with? I doubt you're really old bill.. jog on...

 

[deleon]

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.

That would be the opposite conclusion to the point I'm making.

I'm suggesting that if a supporter is fine with the Saudi takeover but would hypothetically oppose a more "obviously" villainous owner, then it shows that the question of moral quality is not absolute, but not irrelevant either.

Therefore, someone who is not in favour of the Saudi ownership can nevertheless go along with a less terrible prospective owner, even if they are not the "most moral" (your counter-example), or morally neutral (which is a more reasonable standard).

Of course, there are fans who hold that morality is entirely irrelevant, and that they would welcome anyone rich enough, in which case I respect their opinion (as I said in my original post). If this is what you believe as well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But if someone says that they would support the one but not the other because they are different and one of them is pretty extreme, then there is a scale on the table. They would have justify why the Saudi regime's actions are not bad enough to warrant opposition on their own merits, rather than relying on the "all governments have done bad things anyway" stance.

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.

Pretty much this.

 

[Siorac]

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.

Are Manchester United owned by the British regime that colonised India? I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about here. Why are British politics relevant at all here? It would be relevant if Tony Blair were looking to buy United - then we could talk about the Iraq war - but to the best of my knowledge he's not.

And I don't have to decide if a regime is "globally acceptable". An oppressive, regressive, fundamentalist regime that engages in public executions is not acceptable to me and that is what matters when it comes to my stance on the issue. Any other atrocity committed by any real or imaginary entity simply doesn't come into it.

 

[TRUERED89]

The west kill way more people than any Saudi's and always will do. Everyone get off their "moral" high horse, the west sell them weapons and buy their oil, enough said really.. The Glazers are intertwined with Israel who kill innocent people in Palestine everyday! why is no one bitching about the Glazers moral compass? You just don't want Muslims owning United, nothing to do with the crimes they commit..

 

[wolvored]

I think to the ordinary fan who only wants the team to be the best in the world and be spoken about by the best players in the world as wanting to play for this best team in the world, isnt bothered who owns them. If we could sign Mbappe, Sancho, Koulibaly and De Bruyne all in the same transfer window, no-one would be complaining.

 

[Siorac]

The west kill way more people than any Saudi's and always will do. Everyone get off their "moral" high horse, the west sell them weapons and buy their oil, enough said really.. The Glazers are intertwined with Israel who kill innocent people in Palestine everyday! why is no one bitching about the Glazers moral compass? You just don't want Muslims owning United, nothing to do with the crimes they commit..

White text?

Or are you actually serious?

 

[Infra-red]

The west kill way more people than any Saudi's and always will do. Everyone get off their "moral" high horse, the west sell them weapons and buy their oil, enough said really.. The Glazers are intertwined with Israel who kill innocent people in Palestine everyday! why is no one bitching about the Glazers moral compass? You just don't want Muslims owning United, nothing to do with the crimes they commit..

Worst post to grace the caf in recent times. Congratulations.

 

[TRUERED89]

Worst post to grace the caf in recent times. Congratulations.

Maybe a tad over the top, but I don't agree with all the outrage....

 

[Ian Reus]

This is a real David vs goliath match we have here.
Manchester line up with a full nuclear arsenal against the minnows with a sling.

 

[red thru&thru]

This will happen. People need to start getting used to the idea.

 

[Judas]

This will happen. People need to start getting used to the idea.

Yep I think so too. Might be this year, might be next, could be 5 years time. But I do think it'll happen eventually.

 

[SirAF]

Man I love the caf so much I can’t even say which post made me laugh more, the wanking police or the ridiculous “wHaT AbOuT wHaT tHe WeSt dId” argument that has been debunked so many times.

Probably the wanking police Aggravated abuse against a POLICE OFFICER

 

[Antisocial]

I do expect the Saudis to get into football sooner or later, though then I've been expecting that for a while now and it's still not happened, but we'll see.

Obviously buying United is the biggest statement they could make in football - there's no club that will generate as much attention for them as we will for them.

But if they are looking to get into football for good PR reasons, then we are the last club they should buy - in the UK media at least there won't be a single good word written about them if they owned us, whereas if they bought for example Liverpool or Newcastle (or even Chelsea) then the UK tabloids will drown them in love for every penny they spend on those clubs.

United will get them huge (and unmatched) publicity, but the owners won't get the gushing PR in the media that Abu Dhabi has gotten, nor will the UK media turn a blind-eye to any dodgy activities by United owners as they do with City's owners.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I don't like the Glazers. I don't trust the Glazers. I never wanted the Glazers anywhere near United in the first place. But to attribute our post-SAF malaise to their stinginess/greed is absurd in the face of the facts/numbers. We've outspent everyone except two anomalies/lottery winners (neither of whom has succeeded in conquering European football, in spite of having mountains of cash at their disposal) and we have precious little to show for it. You can question the owners' ambition (and direction) on the football side - you can accuse them of having wasted money, in fact - but that ain't the angle pushed by those who seemingly think a sort of "cheat code" in the form of Saudi ownership is United's only hope.

Much like a certain other giant that fell from grace back in the day, our main problems seem to be complacency, incompetence and profligacy. Not poverty. Just like our old enemy, we seem to waste obscene amounts of money in a series of half-arsed, misdirected attempts at getting back on our "feckin' perch".

 

[Hugh Jass]

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.

This.

 

[Adebesi]

I have been as anti Glazer as the next man. I was a signed up member of SU, I am still technically a member of MUST. I never wanted them at our club. But equating the shit the Saudis get up to with an LBO is beyond ridiculous.

 

[lewwoo]

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.

Sense amongst a mountain of nonsense.

 

[Ban]

Now British rule in India is mentioned. What's next, how Romans purged the Christians?

 

[Siorac]

Now British rule in India is mentioned. What's next, how Romans purged the Christians?

Cavemen were really cruel to mammoths I hear.

 

[Ban]

Cavemen were really cruel to mammoths I hear.

Yup, they didn't cover themselves in glory.

 

[red thru&thru]

Yep I think so too. Might be this year, might be next, could be 5 years time. But I do think it'll happen eventually.

Exactly this. Just a waiting game. Can we be any worse than we are now with a take over? Of course. But everything would indicate the opposite.

 

[Siorac]

I don't like the Glazers. I don't trust the Glazers. I never wanted the Glazers anywhere near United in the first place. But to attribute our post-SAF malaise to their stinginess/greed is absurd in the face of the facts/numbers. We've outspent everyone except two anomalies/lottery winners (neither of whom has succeeded in conquering European football, in spite of having mountains of cash at their disposal) and we have precious little to show for it. You can question the owners' ambition (and direction) on the football side - you can accuse them of having wasted money, in fact - but that ain't the angle pushed by those who seemingly think a sort of "cheat code" in the form of Saudi ownership is United's only hope.

Much like a certain other giant that fell from grace back in the day, our main problems seem to be complacency, incompetence and profligacy. Not poverty. Just like our old enemy, we seem to waste obscene amounts of money in a series of half-arsed, misdirected attempts at getting back on our "feckin' perch".

This is a very eloquent and sensible post that succinctly summarises arguments that have been brought up time and time again in the face of the "stingy Glazers" narrative. And just like previous arguments, it will sway no one who is determined to pretend that we are financial underdogs who can only expect to compete with mountains of ill-begotten cash.

 

[Adebesi]

I would certainly have huge reservations about a syndicate of cavemen buying the club. Not only because of their dubious moral behaviour, but also because they wouldnt be able to buy us the galacticos we need to get us back to the top.

 

[Random Task]

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.

So you intend to use the atrocities committed by Colonial Britain, which took place hundreds of years ago at a less civilised period in history, as justification for a modern-day evil regime taking ownership of our club?

The lengths people will go in order to sleep better at night never ceases to amaze me.

 

[TRUERED89]

What? The wank police?

 

[Cloud7]

Now British rule in India is mentioned. What's next, how Romans purged the Christians?

Eventually we’re gonna reach up to “But hang on, Hitler was German wasn’t he? They were worse than the Saudis!!1!”

Checkmate, redcafe non-believers.

Edit: Yes I know he wasn’t German, before some fact checker jumps down my throat.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't like the Glazers. I don't trust the Glazers. I never wanted the Glazers anywhere near United in the first place. But to attribute our post-SAF malaise to their stinginess/greed is absurd in the face of the facts/numbers. We've outspent everyone except two anomalies/lottery winners (neither of whom has succeeded in conquering European football, in spite of having mountains of cash at their disposal) and we have precious little to show for it. You can question the owners' ambition (and direction) on the football side - you can accuse them of having wasted money, in fact - but that ain't the angle pushed by those who seemingly think a sort of "cheat code" in the form of Saudi ownership is United's only hope.

Much like a certain other giant that fell from grace back in the day, our main problems seem to be complacency, incompetence and profligacy. Not poverty. Just like our old enemy, we seem to waste obscene amounts of money in a series of half-arsed, misdirected attempts at getting back on our "feckin' perch".

I don't know if it was just SAF or the Glazers, but alot of our problems was underinvestment after the sale of Ronaldo and losing Tevez. We replaced them with Valencia and Michael Owen. A club like Barcelona would never do that. When Saf left, he left a good, but heavily imbalanced and aging squad.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Eventually we’re gonna reach up to “But hang on, Hitler was German wasn’t he? They were worse than the Saudis!!1!”

Checkmate, redcafe non-believers.

Edit: Yes I know he wasn’t German, before some fact checker jumps down my throat.

Dammit.

 

[Denis' cuff]

I do expect the Saudis to get into football sooner or later, though then I've been expecting that for a while now and it's still not happened, but we'll see.

Obviously buying United is the biggest statement they could make in football - there's no club that will generate as much attention for them as we will for them.

But if they are looking to get into football for good PR reasons, then we are the last club they should buy - in the UK media at least there won't be a single good word written about them if they owned us, whereas if they bought for example Liverpool or Newcastle (or even Chelsea) then the UK tabloids will drown them in love for every penny they spend on those clubs.

United will get them huge (and unmatched) publicity, but the owners won't get the gushing PR in the media that Abu Dhabi has gotten, nor will the UK media turn a blind-eye to any dodgy activities by United owners as they do with City's owners.

You’d expect that from ABU Dhabi

 

[Cloud7]

Dammit.

I knew there would be at least one

 

[DomesticTadpole]

I knew there would be at least one

Here I am.

 

[Vanya]

Its a hard decision for any United supporter with a conscience.

As a supporter I would be happy that we can financially out-compete anyone in the world.

But as a human being I have my own set of morals. Even Man United expects a certain code of conduct and morals from their manager, players and coaches. Does this code not extend to the owners?
One can be happy about being successful at the football side of things. But the knowledge that United would be owned and run by a morally bankrupt, misogynistic, barbaric regime is a hard pill to swallow and morally confusing.

This is not a debate about spending and management IMO, its about morality. The Glazers are no angels, but one should not fall into the trap of false moral equivalence. Murder and subjugation is not the same as being a selfish capitalist.

 

[Ban]

Eventually we’re gonna reach up to “But hang on, Hitler was German wasn’t he? They were worse than the Saudis!!1!”

Checkmate, redcafe non-believers.

Edit: Yes I know he wasn’t German, before some fact checker jumps down my throat.

He was Austrian.






Sorry.

 

[devilish]

So you intend to use the atrocities committed by Colonial Britain, which took place hundreds of years ago at a less civilised period in history, as justification for a modern-day evil regime taking ownership of our club?

The lengths people will go in order to sleep better at night never ceases to amaze me.

True. Its not as if the UK hasn't learnt from its mistake. In fact it refuses to sell weapons to regimes right?

PS 1943 isn't hundreds of years ago

 

[Adebesi]

Why is what Britain does relevant here?

BRITAIN IS NOT CONSIDERING BUYING MAN UNITED.

The day someone proposes taking the club into public ownership we can discuss this. Until then it is completely irrelevant.

 

[TRUERED89]

True. Its not as if the UK hasn't learnt from its mistake. In fact it refuses to sell weapons to regimes right?

PS 1943 isn't hundreds of years ago

Best post of the day

 

[Denis' cuff]

True. Its not as if the UK hasn't learnt from its mistake. In fact it refuses to sell weapons to regimes right?

PS 1943 isn't hundreds of years ago

Could’ve had Irish owners.

Aided Nazis.

 

[Denis' cuff]

Could’ve had Irish owners.

Aided Nazis.

And Conquistadors

 

[Cloud7]

He was Austrian.






Sorry.

Are you trying to take our relationship back to what it was like during the venomous Mourinho days

 

[KM]

Closing this topic as there is literally another thread discussing the same.