Saudi aren't buying United. They're irrelvant in this discussion.
The guys first word in response to your question was "yes." How can he be any clearer?
This is what he does, he agrees with you then avoids the question.
Just always presume there's a political/moral debate going on at all times.How many times have you said you're retiring from the thread?
Rumours say that it could be Stephen pagliuca, ares (similar to Elliott) or liberty media
Well, what else have we got? We can only really debate the facts that we have.
Stop getting dragged in?
He kept blaming the Tories and Boris for the deaths.
I can’t help thinking that a lot of the sentiment of anti-state ownership is fuelled by a degree of Islamophobia, even if this is subconscious in many cases. I doubt there would be this much outrage if it was a Western state behind the bid (if it is indeed a State bid rather than very wealthy individuals from that State).
There are conflicting info on that. Some reported 8 bids with 3/4 being full take overs
I do agree with that statement. I found myself having that stance for years before the WC in Qatar actually when I was forced to face my beliefs on the Middle East, coupled with a few other things like friends going on holiday there, my brothers dad moving out there for work, having a layover there during a flight to Asia etc.
That's partly true, no doubt. But on the sporting side of things all of football see City, PSG etc.. as cheats.
That was from the 25th of February so some of them probably weren't 'serious' bids and got dropped.
Well that's because they have cheated, not because they have ME investment.
Possibly. They could have merged in one bid as well. Else they might not exist at all
That's correct and we're looking at moving towards a finacially doped United.
Very sensible post
There’s an argument that we are already financially constrained by the glazers but through taking out of money, surely
I keep seeing this but can we? In all seriousness look at Newcastle, they haven't because of the spending regulations now from multiple governing bodies. United have a huge revenue anyway in comparison with most clubs so we wouldn't have to cheat or dope anything to stay competitive, and I'm not even sure we'd be allowed to get away with it.
Yes, but they were both clearly being bankrolled football wise by their owners, beyond the means of the clubs. We just need new owners that allow the funds that we generate ourselves be reinvested into the team, whilst the owners invest in the infrastructure such as the stadium, as any responsible owner would. The rest of the football world will be hoping that we don’t achieve this aim.
Obviously, it's one extreme to the other. Looking forward, there's a big difference between buying a trophy and winning/earning one.
Oh bore off man, the same daft argument pops up on every other page, and every time those against state ownership fire back to say they’d be equally against Norway or the US trying to own the club. It’s anti competitive bullshit, everything about goes against what “sport” is supposed to be. As @Mockney so beautifully put it, when any club overspends, they should have no choice but to loan a Weghorst in January, any state ownership makes a mockery of that.
Newcastle and City fans love their owners. United are universally disliked regardless of who our owners might be by opposition fans anyway.
I’m not protecting Qatar from criticism - I’m asking a genuine question as to who should own football clubs. We’re allowing foreign investment to buy up all our assets so why are football clubs where we draw the line? Should the west stop trading with such countries altogether? Or are we saying we will trade and take their gas and investments in everything except football? If so what makes football clubs unique? Because they aren’t businesses but are actually community assets? Petrochemical companies who have their own dubious political reasons for purchasing clubs don’t strike me as the natural gatekeepers to community assets either. Very few of the owners in the EPL do. So who should own community assets? As for the “unlimited budgets” argument - Chelsea have spent 600m in 6 months owned by an equity firm - extreme funding isn’t limited to state funded clubs - and if fairness is the argument then how does Manchester United having 4 times the revenues of over half the league work? You can argue that foreign investment has led to the EPL becoming the biggest, richest and strongest league on the planet - without the rise of Chelsea and then City would that still be the case? Isn’t Newcastle joining the party ultimately good for the league? Would it not have been Manchester United vs Arsenal vs Liverpool every year for the majority of the last 20 years without this foreign investment? Football is more popular than ever with the game continually growing - so how has it been bad for football? What measures are we using to determine that? What does good for football even mean? What should football be trying to achieve? To me this whole thing is difficult and I don’t have the answers to any of it. I am also of the belief that states shouldn’t own football clubs but I understand there’s nuanced debate to be had about it. All I know is it’s all different shades of shite and people patronisingly judging others for what they believe when there are so many grey areas across so many different subjects such as geopolitics, trade, universality of human rights, diversification of economies, foreign investment, football governance, sporting competition and what Manchester United actually is seems a bit ridiculous.
I understand your point of view and can only really say that I disagree, although for very subjective reasons. Only time will tell whether the potential investment is shady or not but I don't relish the prospect of our name being dragged through the mud/courts in 10 years time. I accept the possibility that I'm wrong, but if I'm not I wouldn't expect us to get off as lightly as Chelsea did with Abramovic or City will in a few months time. It's worrying to say the least.
Not sure about that, the media showers City and even Newcastle with praise all the time. Their rivals seeing them as cheats are probably considered jealous by many.
Ah yes we also protested against the current owners who are of Jewish heritage does this make us anti-semites as well don't forget
All of this is fine but isn't this exactly why people don't want state ownership? Be it Qatar, UK, US or whoever.
Don’t use the argument I don’t like? Ok then.
yes, that’s exactly what we want, for our beloved club not to became what City, PSG & Newcastle have become man
Yes but Murdoch was a crook, I’m not aware that Sheikh Jassim is?
Oh, now we’re back to pretending some Sheikh Jizzoff is buying us and not the state.
Do you know anything about Jassim? Do you even for a second believe he’s the one buying United?
