Club Sale | It’s done!

[Wumminator]

I still don't get the opposition to this fellow's(Jassim) bid for United. I am sorry if this offend anyone but I am Nigerian now living and working in the UK and I can categorically tell you that being openly gay in Nigeria is against the law and the "culprit" will be prosecuted. Now if a Nigerian Billionaire say Aliko Dangote wanted to buy a British Club, should he be held to scrutiny by a law popular among most Nigerians? I would say that is stereotyping seeing that there are Nigerians who are not homophobic, I for one am not.


I am not naive to think he is not being used as a front for the Emir, but as it is today, he is an independent free citizen who is allowed to have an opinion of his own.

Unfortunately, people can only be changed to the extent and speed they want to be. Many years ago, being openly gay was against the law in the UK and being black meant you were second class in the US. Women can now drive in Saudi Arabia.
Even today, institutionalized racism is something the west is still struggling with, why are we not up in arms with how the powers that be are dealing with these issues of inequalities?
Forcing ideologies on people or trying to ostracize a whole group of people will not bring the change we desire across the world.

At the end of the day, we are Manchester United fans and supporting what is best for the club should be our primary aim. We are football fans and we should see the bids through the eye of a football fan who wants to see his team do well.

Please if my post offend anyone, it is not my intention and the MODS are free to delete it and give me a .

Really good post and the best use of an emoji I have seen in ages.

The problem is your second paragraph. This individual is a representative for the nation state. The funds used to purchase United are not coming from an individual but rather a country. Some people dislike this, especially when the country is seen as having a lot of issues with human rights, including the deaths of particularly vulnerable individuals.

That is ultimately my issue. People will literally have been directly killed to establish the source of money that will then benefit Man United. I don't like that aspect of it.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Judging and then putting words into others' mouth now are we? Something you've asked others not to

Haha, bloke agreed state ownership was despicable and hated everything those clubs stand for, including the fans that support them.

So no, it’s not putting words into his mouth or judging, it’s showing that was only the case when it wasn’t his own club.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Really good post and the best use of an emoji I have seen in ages.

The problem is your second paragraph. This individual is a representative for the nation state. The funds used to purchase United are not coming from an individual but rather a country. Some people dislike this, especially when the country is seen as having a lot of issues with human rights, including the deaths of particularly vulnerable individuals.

That is ultimately my issue. People will literally have been directly killed to establish the source of money that will then benefit Man United. I don't like that aspect of it.

I personally don’t even think about the state’s human rights etc. I simply think State ownership should have never been allowed, it’s brought the game into total disrepute.
I’ve said it before, but I’d be against Norway buying us also.

 

[FiftChoice]

well I'm foreign, and I too became a Man United fan in 1992 even though United didn't win anything. And I can prove it too. I still have the season review on VHS titled "So near so far".

let me add to this. I’m Norwegian, 37. I have an uncle, who is 50 or so. Biggest United fan. And has been since early 90s.
he grew up in a classic Norwegian coastal village, poor family, 6 siblings. Remote as feck. No TV. But he had radio, and he had magazines. He has several notebooks where he has tracked and noted each PL round in detail since that time. Hand written. From radio updates. Results, players, updated table. Every round. It’s insane

Got my first United kit from him in 94. The 94/95.

So. Yeah. United was hardly an unknown quantity in the early 90s. Club has a rich history and has always been relevant, even abroad.

 

[Woodzy]

I still don't get the opposition to this fellow's(Jassim) bid for United. I am sorry if this offend anyone but I am Nigerian now living and working in the UK and I can categorically tell you that being openly gay in Nigeria is against the law and the "culprit" will be prosecuted. Now if a Nigerian Billionaire say Aliko Dangote wanted to buy a British Club, should he be held to scrutiny by a law popular among most Nigerians? I would say that is stereotyping seeing that there are Nigerians who are not homophobic, I for one am not.


I am not naive to think he is not being used as a front for the Emir, but as it is today, he is an independent free citizen who is allowed to have an opinion of his own.

Unfortunately, people can only be changed to the extent and speed they want to be. Many years ago, being openly gay was against the law in the UK and being black meant you were second class in the US. Women can now drive in Saudi Arabia.
Even today, institutionalized racism is something the west is still struggling with, why are we not up in arms with how the powers that be are dealing with these issues of inequalities?
Forcing ideologies on people or trying to ostracize a whole group of people will not bring the change we desire across the world.

At the end of the day, we are Manchester United fans and supporting what is best for the club should be our primary aim. We are football fans and we should see the bids through the eye of a football fan who wants to see his team do well.

Please if my post offend anyone, it is not my intention and the MODS are free to delete it and give me a .

No need for that last comment, this is one of the best posts you will see in this thread.

 

[avgp_1]

Haha, bloke agreed state ownership was despicable and hated everything those clubs stand for, including the fans that support them.

So no, it’s not putting words into his mouth or judging, it’s showing that was only the case when it wasn’t his own club.

He is still saying he hates that doesn't he. The quote you edited has him literally saying that, just that it is the lesser evil according to him is why he accepts it. Who knows for him Sir Jim isn't much better?

So yes you are putting words into his mouth saying it's all about the money

 

[Pexbo]

Haha, bloke agreed state ownership was despicable and hated everything those clubs stand for, including the fans that support them.

So no, it’s not putting words into his mouth or judging, it’s showing that was only the case when it wasn’t his own club.

Try to dial it down a bit mate

 

[Tincanalley]

Regardless of intent, I think we should be wary of the obvious PR puff pieces that come up. Nick Harris also works for the Mail and he's even questioned their own sources, the ones that had been feeding Keegan (which some have been taking as gospel):



Those speaking on his behalf to this newspaper on Saturday conceded they had never actually met him, don't know whether he is married or has children, and can't say why he started supporting United in 1992, at a point when they hadn't won a league title in 25 years.

It is possible that as a 10-year-old he realised Alex Ferguson was on the brink of turning United into a dominant force over the next two decades and jumped aboard their global fanbase. Those speaking for him could not say how many times he had been to Old Trafford but insist he is a 'genuine' United fan who has been in person to 'many' United matches over the years.

Good post. This guy is a cut out, a mock up investor a scarecrow front for the Quatar dictatorship

 

[Woodzy]

I personally don’t even think about the state’s human rights etc. I simply think State ownership should have never been allowed, it’s brought the game into total disrepute.
I’ve said it before, but I’d be against Norway buying us also.

This I agree with, but I’ve said it before in that we are way too far gone at this point. The league should have stopped City and Newcastle, and in all honesty (and maybe even more so) should have stopped Roman way back. PSG should have been stopped, and even the dodgy shit that Barca for example seem to get up to shouldn’t be allowed.

It’s also the reason why my preference is the Qatar takeover. I genuinely think they are the best option for the future of the club, which considering absolutely nothing can be done about state ownership in the league, is all that matters to me now.

If Qatar don’t buy us, they will buy another club, then another state backed entity will buy another and so on. They have let the league go this way and it’s a disgrace, but I don’t think there’s anything that can be done. It’s literally case of you can’t beat them, join them at this point.

I completely understand why people would stop supporting the club tbh, football has lost its soul, but in my mind i’d rather watch this horrible money driven, corrupted version of football than none at all.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Try to dial it down a bit mate

 

[cyberman]

Regardless of intent, I think we should be wary of the obvious PR puff pieces that come up. Nick Harris also works for the Mail and he's even questioned their own sources, the ones that had been feeding Keegan (which some have been taking as gospel):



Those speaking on his behalf to this newspaper on Saturday conceded they had never actually met him, don't know whether he is married or has children, and can't say why he started supporting United in 1992, at a point when they hadn't won a league title in 25 years.

It is possible that as a 10-year-old he realised Alex Ferguson was on the brink of turning United into a dominant force over the next two decades and jumped aboard their global fanbase. Those speaking for him could not say how many times he had been to Old Trafford but insist he is a 'genuine' United fan who has been in person to 'many' United matches over the years.

To be fair Keegan has been spot on so far.

 

[cyberman]

I was a 30 year old in 1992 and I didn't realize what Fergie was unleashing, and I was a match going red of many years at the time, so I doubt a 10 year old knew, having said that, most of these ME royals were educated in England so it's entirely possible he was watching on TV at the time

United beat Barca in a major European final in 91. If anything it’s the most logical year for United to catch an international fans attention

 

[Tincanalley]

If this is all internet can find on INEOS then it doesn't sound much. There is no way it is even close to being the same as the plight of women, gays, economic migrants etc. along with other issues realted to human rights, press freedom and justice in a whole state. Specially when the state has the ability to chnage all of this but simply chooses not to.

Now I have no intention to get involved in what the Qataris think is the best way to run their country and its something for them to deal with. But the scrutiny that will come with owning something as big as Manchester United will be unlike anything previously seen with PSG, City etc. and this will be something that will be good neither for our club nor for Qatar. We would not want to be the stick that is used to beat a questionable regime for whatever that happens back home in Qatar. There are a lot of journos with heavy anti-united bias and they will lap up every opportunity to create unnecessary controversies. Imagine an openly gay player that we are rumoured to be interested in (but fail to acquire) or we do not even show interest, this will be something that press will try to link with the owners, and something we shouldn't have to deal with.

Indeed. Will we be allowed to keep badge? To be Red Devils? To have independent decision making with football and not PR as a priority? Despite all those tripping over themselves to believe the yarns about someone who has been built before our eyes, keep in mind how mad the PR machine is playing, how hot it’s running, even before they own us. If they did, the club identity would be part of that PR machine.

 

[red thru&thru]

It is reassuring that the PA reported that The Raine Group/Glazers would like this process to be wrapped up quite quickly. Will be good to get the new owners in, and for a new era to begin.

 

[red thru&thru]

After writing this i jumped on ChatGPT

Have there been any controversy with the company ineos?
Yes, there have been some controversies associated with the company INEOS over the years. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Environmental Controversies: INEOS has faced several environmental controversies over the years. In 2018, the company was fined £300,000 for releasing toxic gas into the atmosphere at its Grangemouth plant in Scotland. In 2019, the company was also accused of illegally dumping waste water from its Rafnes plant in Norway.
2. Fracking Controversies: INEOS has also been involved in controversies related to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the UK. The company has been one of the most vocal supporters of fracking in the country and has faced criticism from environmental groups and local communities who oppose the practice. In 2017, the company's plans to conduct seismic surveys in Sherwood Forest were met with protests.
3. Sports Controversies: INEOS is also known for its involvement in professional sports, particularly cycling. The company has been criticized for its financial backing of Team Sky (now known as Team INEOS), which has been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs. The company has also faced criticism for its involvement in the America's Cup sailing competition, which has been criticized for its high cost and environmental impact.

Overall, like many large companies, INEOS has faced its share of controversies. However, it is also worth noting that the company has made significant contributions to the chemical and manufacturing industries, and has also invested heavily in renewable energy projects in recent years.

While the controversies I mentioned earlier are some of the more well-known ones associated with INEOS, there have been a few other issues that some people may find concerning:

1. Tax Avoidance: Like many multinational corporations, INEOS has been accused of engaging in aggressive tax avoidance. In 2016, the company was listed as one of the top ten tax avoiders in the UK by the charity Oxfam.
2. Health and Safety Concerns: INEOS has been criticized for its health and safety record at some of its plants. In 2014, for example, an explosion occurred at the company's Grangemouth plant, which injured several workers and caused a shutdown of the plant for several months.
3. Political Influence: Some critics have raised concerns about the political influence that INEOS wields, particularly in the UK. The company's founder, Jim Ratcliffe, is known for his close ties to the UK government and his support of Brexit.

It's worth noting that these issues have not been without controversy and have been contested by INEOS and its supporters. However, these are some of the concerns that have been raised by critics of the company.

(That’s just the non edited output from ChatGPT - worth saying that i have not corroborated any of this, just straight copy and paste)

Thanks for this. I do like ChatGPT. Such a good tool, especially for professionals.

 

[red thru&thru]

More about Jassim, via ChatGPT:

"Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani is a member of the Qatari royal family and a prominent businessman.

He is the founder and chairman of Qatar Islamic Bank, which is the first Islamic bank in Qatar. He is also the chairman of Qatar Insurance Company and a board member of Qatar National Bank.

Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani has played a significant role in the development of Qatar's economy and the growth of the financial sector."

 

[villain]

Man Utd were popular in 1992, but Qatar didn't even get Premier League coverage on television for a decade after that. It's phenomenally unlikely that a 10 year old started supporting a club he never watched the year before they started winning, a year which also just happens to match the year a crop of incredibly gifted youngsters won the youth cup and went on to become an important year in the iconography of the club yet there be absolutely no evidence of him ever supporting the club in the 30 years following, never mind in the 90's.

It's technically possible, but it's also exactly the kind of heavy handed attempt at cultural appropriation someone would come up with when trying to win over a sceptical fanbase.

my dad started supporting United before we became a dominant force while he was finishing medical school in Ghana, because of a welsh winger named Giggs (he accepted a job offer in wales that he was due to start after finishing pre-requisite courses & experience in Ghana & Cameroon).

I think a lot of people who haven’t seen the impact a club like United have on its global audience take for granted just how dedicated the fans are, and how little it takes for someone to start supporting a club, then become devoted to it. It’s easy to see videos of thousands of fans in bars & clubs in places like India, Thailand, Nigeria etc but I think people just assume these guys started supporting the club only because it was successful, and I think that does a massive disservice to them quite frankly, and it’s borderline insulting. And it’s not what cultural appropriation means either.

Also a key point to remember that English Football sold itself to the world in order to ‘sportswash’ its previous image of hooliganism after the UEFA ban, and created the PL in exactly ‘92.
Which was the first domino that has led to the league being flush with cash that other leagues around the world can’t compete with.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of fans from a global audience have a similar story of when they started supporting their team.

 

[Lentwood]

So, could the new owners clear the debt/build a new stadium/new training complex WITHOUT this impacting FFP? Had a couple of conflicting responses.

Reason I am interested is because many of our fans are very confused about our finances and think we are far more profitable than we actually are. Im not convinced even with trillionaire owners that we'd be able to spend £400/500m net on transfers regularly without putting FFP at risk

 

[Giggsyking]

Man Utd were popular in 1992, but Qatar didn't even get Premier League coverage on television for a decade after that. It's phenomenally unlikely that a 10 year old started supporting a club he never watched the year before they started winning, a year which also just happens to match the year a crop of incredibly gifted youngsters won the youth cup and went on to become an important year in the iconography of the club yet there be absolutely no evidence of him ever supporting the club in the 30 years following, never mind in the 90's.

It's technically possible, but it's also exactly the kind of heavy handed attempt at cultural appropriation someone would come up with when trying to win over a sceptical fanbase.

There is nothing phenomenal about this. I am originally from the ME, I started supporting united because my father did, but I remember very well few of my friends started supporting united because of the Cup winners cup final against Barcelona 1991 that was aired on every TV in the region, so why is it strange?

We won the FA cup in 1990 and a European cup in 1991 so to say "before we start winning" is not true at all.

 

[cyberman]

So, could the new owners clear the debt/build a new stadium/new training complex WITHOUT this impacting FFP? Had a couple of conflicting responses.

Reason I am interested is because many of our fans are very confused about our finances and think we are far more profitable than we actually are. Im not convinced even with trillionaire owners that we'd be able to spend £400/500m net on transfers regularly without putting FFP at risk

They can. It’s only concerns ffp if it comes out of the clubs accounts and the bill is loaded on to us.
UEFA would never limit infrastructure spend like that if it didn’t cost the club, that’s an actual benefit and not a huge bill loaded on

 

[owlo]

So, could the new owners clear the debt/build a new stadium/new training complex WITHOUT this impacting FFP? Had a couple of conflicting responses.

Reason I am interested is because many of our fans are very confused about our finances and think we are far more profitable than we actually are. Im not convinced even with trillionaire owners that we'd be able to spend £400/500m net on transfers regularly without putting FFP at risk

In all likelyhood, yes. Clearing the debt is a non issue. The stadium/new training is '90% likely.' (the regulations are clear as mud, we need the toolkit.)

As to the transfers, I've explained before, but basically 300/year+ would be pushing it. If you consider from 25/26 you need to be at 70% of income including wages. The key would be raising income.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It’s literally case of you can’t beat them, join them at this point.

Or walk away, I suppose.

(For the individual fan, I mean - and I see now that you pretty much said just that in your last paragraph.)

ETA And with regard to said paragraph: yes, I think what you suggest there will be true for many of us. It's not really a matter of suddenly walking away, as it were, on the realization that (shock and horror) football has become unpalatable. Rather it will be the last straw: perhaps even an excuse to finally just stop caring.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

i haven’t looked into this Jim guy but I’m not sure there will not be many owners of $60b petroleum and chemical companies that are squeaky clean. The narrative here so far seems to be Qatar bad, Jim good, but has anyone done any thorough research on the guy? Off so would love to see a bulleted summary

Fracking is a big one. Especially considering that was Attempted in Lancashire against the will of the residents and council and caused Earthquakes in the area.

Still nowhere near as bad as Qatar though. Different levels.

 

[owlo]

They can. It’s only concerns ffp if it comes out of the clubs accounts and the bill is loaded on to us.
UEFA would never limit infrastructure spend like that if it didn’t cost the club, that’s an actual benefit and not a huge bill loaded on

yea you could basically never build a new stadium or something if thats the way it is. I'm not sure the intent, but it'll either be a non issue or modified to make more sense.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

So I guess he and the guy from Qatar claiming to be a life long Liverpool fan are two peas from the same pod then.

But the Liverpool fan is not involved in the bidding? That is the guy who was behind Qatar Bid for the world cup and was also in the documentary on Netflix.

 

[owlo]

Franking is a big one. Especially considering that was Attempted in Lancashire against the will of the residents and council.

Still nowhere near as bad as Qatar though. Different levels.

You can't really compare like for like. Different levels of opportunity. Put Ratcliffe in the Emirs boots and I'm sure he'd be delighted for the extra slave labour. He's constantly trying to mess up his workers wages/pensions/jobs etc to save money, so he's just a scumbag with less opportunity for me. A country will generally do more damage than an individual in the present terms. That's not excusing Qatar at all though, just attempting to live with the reality.

 

[AdamColeBebe]

Absolutely,
OT holds 75k where 65k are season ticket holders?

There are hundreds of millions of dedicated supporters worldwide that live and breathe United on a daily basis hanging on every thread of information and content.

Those who can afford to or are lucky enough to live close enough to see United play live are LUCKY. There are people in the darkest most remote parts of the world using United , watching via dodgy streams at 4am as escapism.

Boils my blood when I hear bullshit like “local fans are more important”.

This. Fans boast we are the biggest club in the world then whinge about "tourists" from abroad at games. Most odd.

 

[cyberman]

yea you could basically never build a new stadium or something if thats the way it is. I'm not sure the intent, but it'll either be a non issue or modified to make more sense.

You could never rent one ala City if you weren’t allowed to have outside club investment, most of Italy would be fecked since they don’t own their own stadiums. I don’t even think PSG own theirs

 

[Giggsyking]

It is laughable that some united fans does not know how popular Manchester United was in the ME and Asia before 1992 .

 

[owlo]

You could never rent one ala City if you weren’t allowed to have outside club investment, most of Italy would be fecked since they don’t own their own stadiums. I don’t even think PSG own theirs

Financial sustainability rules are new for 2023. In the old FFP it was a non issue as 'relevant investment' was simply discarded from the calculations.

Italy are kinda fecked with these new rules anyway.... The "expenses as 70% of income" is gonna be tough for them.

 

[Rado_N]

I don’t know why anyone is surprised about him starting supporting us in 92, football didn’t exist before then.

 

[Jacob]

I personally don’t even think about the state’s human rights etc. I simply think State ownership should have never been allowed, it’s brought the game into total disrepute.
I’ve said it before, but I’d be against Norway buying us also.

I personally have never given it a second thought. Still enjoy football with blissful ignorance. It doesn't bother me one bit. I'm here to watch football, that's it.

 

[Denis79]

I still don't get the opposition to this fellow's(Jassim) bid for United. I am sorry if this offend anyone but I am Nigerian now living and working in the UK and I can categorically tell you that being openly gay in Nigeria is against the law and the "culprit" will be prosecuted. Now if a Nigerian Billionaire say Aliko Dangote wanted to buy a British Club, should he be held to scrutiny by a law popular among most Nigerians? I would say that is stereotyping seeing that there are Nigerians who are not homophobic, I for one am not.


I am not naive to think he is not being used as a front for the Emir, but as it is today, he is an independent free citizen who is allowed to have an opinion of his own.

Unfortunately, people can only be changed to the extent and speed they want to be. Many years ago, being openly gay was against the law in the UK and being black meant you were second class in the US. Women can now drive in Saudi Arabia.
Even today, institutionalized racism is something the west is still struggling with, why are we not up in arms with how the powers that be are dealing with these issues of inequalities?
Forcing ideologies on people or trying to ostracize a whole group of people will not bring the change we desire across the world.

At the end of the day, we are Manchester United fans and supporting what is best for the club should be our primary aim. We are football fans and we should see the bids through the eye of a football fan who wants to see his team do well.

Please if my post offend anyone, it is not my intention and the MODS are free to delete it and give me a .

"The bid is not by a single billionaire, but by a country that has transgressed against much more than just LGBTQ rights. They systematically oppress women, have slave-like conditions for their foreign low-paid workforce, and are responsible for thousands of migrant worker deaths. They are a monstrous regime that rules with fear and violence. If they didn't have money, we would have ostracized them like we have with North Korea."

 

[cyberman]

Financial sustainability rules are new for 2023. In the old FFP it was a non issue as 'relevant investment' was simply discarded from the calculations.

Italy are kinda fecked with these new rules anyway.... The "expenses as 70% of income" is gonna be tough for them.

It’s still a non issue though, if they weren’t allowed to rent stadiums etc there would be such an uproar and panic about it now.
They can’t police what the owners do outside of the club, if they want to build a stadium they can. There’s nothing that would go through the United books for UEFA to analyse.
From what I read the big rule change is it can’t go through the clubs without ffp anymore because an owner building a new stadium under club credit is just as bad, if not worse, than going all out on players and fecking off.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

https://www.chemanager-online.com/en/news/ineos-fined-ps167000-million-runcorn-spill

Manchester United is not the first thing INEOS wants to bring back to Manchester. It had leaked some toxic caustic soda as well

That was Runcorn, so closer to Liverpool. But I see your point.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I still don't get the opposition to this fellow's(Jassim) bid for United. I am sorry if this offend anyone but I am Nigerian now living and working in the UK and I can categorically tell you that being openly gay in Nigeria is against the law and the "culprit" will be prosecuted. Now if a Nigerian Billionaire say Aliko Dangote wanted to buy a British Club, should he be held to scrutiny by a law popular among most Nigerians? I would say that is stereotyping seeing that there are Nigerians who are not homophobic, I for one am not.


I am not naive to think he is not being used as a front for the Emir, but as it is today, he is an independent free citizen who is allowed to have an opinion of his own.

Unfortunately, people can only be changed to the extent and speed they want to be. Many years ago, being openly gay was against the law in the UK and being black meant you were second class in the US. Women can now drive in Saudi Arabia.
Even today, institutionalized racism is something the west is still struggling with, why are we not up in arms with how the powers that be are dealing with these issues of inequalities?
Forcing ideologies on people or trying to ostracize a whole group of people will not bring the change we desire across the world.

At the end of the day, we are Manchester United fans and supporting what is best for the club should be our primary aim. We are football fans and we should see the bids through the eye of a football fan who wants to see his team do well.

Please if my post offend anyone, it is not my intention and the MODS are free to delete it and give me a .

That’s a good and interesting post. I guess the key thing here is the assumption that he is inextricably linked with the Qatari state. Not a legitimate private individual. Which everyone seems to think is the case. You could argue that anyone as wealthy as Radcliffe didn’t get where they are without being extremely close to the Uk government but I guess it’s all relative.

 

[Mickeza]

I personally don’t even think about the state’s human rights etc. I simply think State ownership should have never been allowed, it’s brought the game into total disrepute.
I’ve said it before, but I’d be against Norway buying us also.

I think the vast majority feel like this. If there was a poll asking what you’d prefer - Qatar purchase United or Qatar get blocked and the owners of PSG, Newcastle and City are forced to sell - I think most would take the latter. It isn’t happening though is it? The horse has bolted. Instead of people going around judging their fellow United fans for wanting owners who will invest in the club after 18 years of an ownership model that took 1.5bn out of it maybe judge the U.K. government, the EPL and UEFA who have got us all into this mess.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

my dad started supporting United before we became a dominant force while he was finishing medical school in Ghana, because of a welsh winger named Giggs (he accepted a job offer in wales that he was due to start after finishing pre-requisite courses & experience in Ghana & Cameroon).

I think a lot of people who haven’t seen the impact a club like United have on its global audience take for granted just how dedicated the fans are, and how little it takes for someone to start supporting a club, then become devoted to it. It’s easy to see videos of thousands of fans in bars & clubs in places like India, Thailand, Nigeria etc but I think people just assume these guys started supporting the club only because it was successful, and I think that does a massive disservice to them quite frankly, and it’s borderline insulting. And it’s not what cultural appropriation means either.

Also a key point to remember that English Football sold itself to the world in order to ‘sportswash’ its previous image of hooliganism after the UEFA ban, and created the PL in exactly ‘92.
Which was the first domino that has led to the league being flush with cash that other leagues around the world can’t compete with.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of fans from a global audience have a similar story of when they started supporting their team.

English football sold itself to the World to make a bigger profit.

I'm not saying that is a noble cause. But it is totally different to sportswashing.

 

[Mickeza]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[cyberman]

English football sold itself to the World to make a bigger profit.

I'm not saying that is a noble cause. But it is totally different to sportswashing.

English football sold its soul, in part, to change and clean its image from the previous decade. It wasn’t all about money and was as close to sports washing without it being sports washing.
It kind of worked. People always look back and say it was for the money but that was only one factor.