Saudi sports minister gives update on buying club from Glazers

[MackRobinson]

Wow, I'm really honoured for all the effort you have put in on getting all these previous posts. But yes, I'm happy for new ownership that I know will demand success both on and off the pitch for my club.

It took me a maximum of 5 minutes to create that post. XenForo's search functionality is actually quite robust. You are allowed to have your opinion, regardless if I disagree. I was just surprised when you said you didn't want it to happen.

 

[MackRobinson]

Add another vote here - there is no difference between American owners and Saudi owners. In fact, America has been responsible for far more deaths and misery in the Middle East alone than the Saudis. To say nothing of the rest of the world.

Thus, the preference of American owners over Saudis expressed by some over here seems a teensy bit, I am sorry to say, racist.

1) The American government isn't a dictatorial regime with de facto control over its corporations and wealthy citizens.
2) Nationality isn't the same as race.

 

[Coops73]

On a lighter note....

Despite what they say, sarcasm is the highest form of wit and this is sarcasm at its very best.

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[red thru&thru]

It took me a maximum of 5 minutes to create that post. XenForo's search functionality is actually quite robust. You are allowed to have your opinion, regardless if I disagree. I was just surprised when you said you didn't want it to happen.

I'm just looking at the positives when it comes to the football side of things. Like I have said previously, for right or wrong, I'm not wanting to mix sports and politics. Previously maybe I have played devils advocate about the Saudis to the moral police but I've had my say now. I'm of the opinion that this, or someone a like, will be taking over us soon enough, so I'm just looking forward to the effects of a new ownership and what I would like it to consist of.

 

[matt10000]

Are you being sarcastic?

No I thought your post was very fuuny and illustrated your point perfectly - made me laugh

 

[dabeast]

While this level of spending by the Glazers seems anemic, this might be the peak. Our revenue will take a big hit if we don't make the CL again and sponsors start leaving and then we will have to take on more debt (it is up markedly this quarter as it is) which will increase payments, etc. Our net spend will suffer and will affect our playing staff. This will mean our chances of making the CL reduce further (and as was clearly the case against Barcelona last year, our chances of winning it were zero) as has been the case for the past 10 years but will get worse with Spurs, Chelsea, City, Arsenal and Leicester all about as good as us.

So, we have a short window of time before our club gets even further into the debt trap created by the Glazers' leveraged buyout. The only entity in the world that would buy us is the Saudis, there is no value in our club's current market cap for any other prospective buyer. If we don't change ownership now, we might be stuck in mid-table mediocrity for decades.

The question is, would you rather have that or owners who, IMHO, are no better or worse than any others.

 

[Dion]

The question is, would you rather have that or owners who, IMHO, are no better or worse than any others.

Mate, the Glazers have never made being homosexual a capital offence. Don't ****ing dare.

 

[dabeast]

Mate, the Glazers have never made being homosexual a capital offence. Don't ****ing dare.

What does that have to do with their fitness in owning a football club? Football clubs don't have any jurisdiction over sexual preference.

Too much of this discussion brings in unrelated issues to what should be the main and only one, whether an owner has the capacity to take our club forward. The Saudis definitely have that capacity, might be the only ones, and this might be the only time they would be interested.

 

[Dion]

What does that have to do with their fitness in owning a football club?

Google "sportswashing" and stop talking.

 

[dabeast]

Google "sportswashing" and stop talking.

Sportswashing is a term invented to smear certain sources of capital over others. All capital wants returns, but apparently when the source of capital is not the traditional sources from the traditional parts of the world it needs to be "washed." This is consistent with racist ideologies in other forms, it would behoove all of us to try and think of people in all parts of the world in a mutually respectful way.

Oh, and below are the rules for this forum and I shall indeed "stop talking" for today. Thanks.

"Rules to remember: no adult images or videos; mind your language; criticise the post not the poster; remain respectful to other posters."

 

[Inigo Montoya]

What does that have to do with their fitness in owning a football club? Football clubs don't have any jurisdiction over sexual preference.

Too much of this discussion brings in unrelated issues to what should be the main and only one, whether an owner has the capacity to take our club forward. The Saudis definitely have that capacity, might be the only ones, and this might be the only time they would be interested.

Should be the ‘main and only one.’

Oh boy, that depresses me. If you place sport above human rights then the world is fecked

 

[KekiZeki]

Do we want to be at a whim of the super-rich owner who is used to rule as a dictator?
Glazers, with all their flaws, still uphold to certain westernized rules, they wouldn't do anything deliberate to damage their key asset, while a mighty ruler of a big country could use our club as a bargaining chip if he's ever in any kind of trade war with the UK. We're a big brand, him holding us ransom could be a ploy in some kind of a game of chicken with British government if Saudis ever go rogue and spite US and UK in some way.

So no, I am not in favor of it in spite of Saudi riches. Also, I can't say I ever felt the lack of money was our problem. There was a few times when I felt we should have invested more, but never a continuing frustration with the lack of spending such as Arsenal fans whine about.

 

[stevoc]

This is what I'm saying. Where do you start and stop with the morals? You just have take the situation as it is.

Where do you start?

 

[Could have been a pro]

It's not popular in terms of politics I guess, but perhaps worth noting that Saudi Arabia is making some sort of effort to modernise. Bearing in mind it's a deeply conservative country, change will take a long time. Perhaps engaging more with the world by owning western clubs etc can speed the process. Still, I'd rather the Yanks with eagles, freedom and AR15s.

 

[Johan07]

Sportswashing is a term invented to smear certain sources of capital over others. All capital wants returns, but apparently when the source of capital is not the traditional sources from the traditional parts of the world it needs to be "washed." This is consistent with racist ideologies in other forms, it would behoove all of us to try and think of people in all parts of the world in a mutually respectful way.

Oh, and below are the rules for this forum and I shall indeed "stop talking" for today. Thanks.

"Rules to remember: no adult images or videos; mind your language; criticise the post not the poster; remain respectful to other posters."

Sportswashing has nothing to do with sources of capital. You do understand that its not money laundering we are talking about?
Sportswashing has to do with the "returns" that the "investor" will want on his invested capital and the measures they will take using the club as vehicle to reach those returns. For the House of Saud the return would be their dictatorship and their society looked upon differently and maybe even accepted.
And that is the wahhabism and salafism that their society is built on.
Like the Qataris they would also seek more influence in UEFA and FIFA to be able to influnce those bodies as well.
And they would use United to reach those goals without any hesitation.
To think that buying United would start to make religious fanatics change their ways because of Uniteds values or whatever is beyound naive.
That said: I - contrary to other posters on here - dont think that the Saudis will buy United, Liverpool, and especially not Spurs due to their Jewish background. Or any of the other big clubs in the PL. The backlash from the fans would be enormous with any of those clubs, and I think they will steer away from it.
I think they will do like the Qataris and Abu Dhabi did with PSG and City and find a small club without money that still has a name. Say Leeds for example. A club where the fans and the club will welcome them as saviours as we saw with City and hail their arrival. Its not a coincidence that the backlash from Citys own supporters did not happen when the Qataris tookover considering where they were at; at the time.
Its sad to see posts like yours, it really is.

 

[red thru&thru]

Where do you start?

I asked the question first?!

 

[Dion]

Sportswashing is a term invented to smear certain sources of capital over others. All capital wants returns, but apparently when the source of capital is not the traditional sources from the traditional parts of the world it needs to be "washed." This is consistent with racist ideologies in other forms, it would behoove all of us to try and think of people in all parts of the world in a mutually respectful way.

Oh, and below are the rules for this forum and I shall indeed "stop talking" for today. Thanks.

"Rules to remember: no adult images or videos; mind your language; criticise the post not the poster; remain respectful to other posters."

Yes, because the problem with the Saudi government is their race. Not that they execute people for being gay, blaspheming and a whole host of barbaric things.

All sources of capital aren't equal because the people behind those sources of capital aren't all even. Not that that is even what sportswashing is about of course.

And I showed you more respect than your contemptible views deserve.

 

[westmeath]

I dont see 25 percent of Uniteds shares being a "small portion". Its the opposite. A lot. The Glazers have silently relinquished more and more equity and even if I dont have the exact number they now only control around 75 percent of the equity of United. Its incorrect that this was a one time "small" exercise done years ago. Its been done over time.
Of course they still control the club via the unlisted Class Bs and their voting rights, but diluting their equity that much has more major consequences for them and the club that just voting rights.
Its far from a small thing.
The dividend policy to begin with.
Since all shares are treated equally the Glazers are giving away 25 percent of the dividends to other shareholders when the club does distribute dividends. Which the club will stop doing (distributing dividends) in January 2020 if I read the latest AR correctly. Something that for some reason seems to gone under the radar and also explains a bit of the dump the share price has taken.
It also has major impact for if the Glazers decide to sell and need to unlist Uniteds stock from the NYSE. How that would work today with so much equity alrady floated on the NYSE some US based stock lawyer needs to answer, its beyond my competence.
But to say or imply that the amount of shares that has been floated by the Glazers now is not of major consequence is incorrect.

thanks for bringing some facts to the party. Was not aware they had floated 25%. The point is that the decision to sell control of the club is all down to the Glazers and the minority shareholders will be just passengers in the process.

 

[thegregster]

thanks for bringing some facts to the party. Was not aware they had floated 25%. The point is that the decision to sell control of the club is all down to the Glazers and the minority shareholders will be just passengers in the process.

Correct.

The Glazers still control 98.7% of the voting rights. So the other shareholders are insignificant.

However, under the dual-class share structure outlined in the IPO, that gave them only 1.3% of total voting power. Crucially, the Glazers, which retained 58% of Class A shares, also held all of Class B shares, which carried 10 times the voting weight and, therefore, left the American family with 98.7% of the voting power

 

[Johan07]

Correct.

The Glazers still control 98.7% of the voting rights. So the other shareholders are insignificant.

As a principle though, you cant force other shareholders to sell their shares, if its not allowed under/because of takeover regulations or applicable company law. If that is what is being discussed here. So insignificant, naw, not so much.
No one is disputing that the Glazers always will have control over the clubs business as long as they are sitting on the Class Bs. Thats one thing. Selling the club is something else when its a PLC.
Given that the Glazers floated so many Class A shares it would be interesting to here from a US/Cayman Island lawyer how the Glazers would deal with the 25 percent minority shareholders if they do decide to sell their Class Bs. Considering that a hedge fund like Baron Capital are sitting on around 30 percent of the floated Class A shares; I would imagine that you cant just waive them bye, bye and pay them NYSE stock price for their shares.

 

[Coops73]

No I thought your post was very fuuny and illustrated your point perfectly - made me laugh

Ta

 

[stevoc]

I asked the question first?!

I wouldn't want the rulers of SA to own United no, nor would i rationalize it by trying to separate the politics/football and even if i could i definitely wouldn't go as far as championing or hoping for it. (not necessarily saying you are doing that)

You seem to be ok with Saudi ownership of the club you support fair enough. But i'm wondering do you just take every situation as it is then and have no objections to being associated with anyone or anything morally repugnant?

Or is there a line where you would feel similar to how i and others would feel about this takeover?

 

[Will Singh]

How many billionaires have there hands clean?

My problem with who ever is running the club is when commercial income is more important then the winning of the team. Glazers have set us up for commercial purposes 1st football 2nd.

Now the Saudi's taken over I'm sure they will want the team to be number 1 which is great right..maybe but that at a cost of them using us to clean up there image. AJ didn't mind doing it and took a fat cheque so why should we care??

 

[Dion]

How many billionaires have there hands clean?

How many billionaires are in direct control on whether there is a democratic process in their country or whether gay people are executed?

AJ didn't mind doing it and took a fat cheque so why should we care??

Someone else doing something bad stops being an excuse for you doing it when you develop a sense of right and wrong, somewhere between the ages of 2 and 5.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

1) The American government isn't a dictatorial regime with de facto control over its corporations and wealthy citizens.
2) Nationality isn't the same as race.

Thank you for the political science lesson but I’m confused as to how not being technically a dictatorship somehow makes the slaughters committed by the American regimes easier to swallow?

 

[UDontMessWith24]

How many billionaires are in direct control on whether there is a democratic process in their country or whether gay people are executed?



Someone else doing something bad stops being an excuse for you doing it when you develop a sense of right and wrong, somewhere between the ages of 2 and 5.

Dear me. Are you talking about the fanatical evangelicals that control the current regime in the U.S or Saudis? You’ll have to be more specific if you want us to differentiate.

 

[dabeast]

Do we want to be at a whim of the super-rich owner who is used to rule as a dictator?
Glazers, with all their flaws, still uphold to certain westernized rules, they wouldn't do anything deliberate to damage their key asset, while a mighty ruler of a big country could use our club as a bargaining chip if he's ever in any kind of trade war with the UK. We're a big brand, him holding us ransom could be a ploy in some kind of a game of chicken with British government if Saudis ever go rogue and spite US and UK in some way.

So no, I am not in favor of it in spite of Saudi riches. Also, I can't say I ever felt the lack of money was our problem. There was a few times when I felt we should have invested more, but never a continuing frustration with the lack of spending such as Arsenal fans whine about.

Upholding certain “westernized rules”? Man United plays their games in Manchester but is entirely a global club now. According to a Kantar study posted by the BBC in 2013 (can’t post because I have 3 likes but you can easily Google it), 50 % of our fans live in Asia, 25% in the Middle East and Africa and the last 25% in Europe and the Americas. About 0.1% live in Manchester.

So, as a fan body, I don’t understand why we would be interested in upholding “westernized rules”. Rather, if each fan’s opinion counts equally, we would see our values as those of the United Nations where AFAIK the Saudis are valued members.

 

[KennyBurner]

Upholding certain “westernized rules”? Man United plays their games in Manchester but is entirely a global club now. According to a Kantar study posted by the BBC in 2013 (can’t post because I have 3 likes but you can easily Google it), 50 % of our fans live in Asia, 25% in the Middle East and Africa and the last 25% in Europe and the Americas. About 0.1% live in Manchester.

So, as a fan body, I don’t understand why we would be interested in upholding “westernized rules”. Rather, if each fan’s opinion counts equally, we would see our values as those of the United Nations where AFAIK the Saudis are valued members.

How can you not understand that a westernized club would want to continue upholding its westernized rules? The fact that United is Global does not change the fact that most of its games and activities are based in Britain a westernized nation. I think its unreasonable for you to think because of how Global football has become United have to incorporate other cultures into its own just because of a few broadcasting rights here and there. It would be different if the league games where played in those countries. Its not a global business like Walmart which sets up grocery stores in different countries. Thats the only example when they should mix cultures.

Your essesntially trying to change what makes Manchester United what it is, a British club.

 

[dabeast]

Yes, because the problem with the Saudi government is their race. Not that they execute people for being gay, blaspheming and a whole host of barbaric things.

All sources of capital aren't equal because the people behind those sources of capital aren't all even. Not that that is even what sportswashing is about of course.

And I showed you more respect than your contemptible views deserve.

It is the nature of all States to assert power with force and exclusion, different States do it in different ways given the context. Look no further than current misadventures in Afghanistan and the Middle East to see how the British State is exercising its power and historically in places like India.

I am a little confused, is the objection to a State owning us (why is private enterprise preferred?) or the identity of the State? What if the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund bought us, would that be preferable to the Saudi PIF?

Or is it that we should choose private enterprise. In which case the rules of the NYSE and British law actually make no difference about the source of capital (there is a “fit” clause for PL ownership but Thaksin passed that).

If my views expressed on this forum are enough to give rise to contempt in you, I hope you can seek help. Contempt is never helpful and hurts the contempt-haver more than its object.

After the derby racist incident Ole instinctively responded that the person shouldn’t be punished but educated about racism. I find that to be a far more enlightened response and hope we can all see others (and ourselves) in the same way.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Yes, because the problem with the Saudi government is their race. Not that they execute people for being gay, blaspheming and a whole host of barbaric things.

All sources of capital aren't equal because the people behind those sources of capital aren't all even. Not that that is even what sportswashing is about of course.

And I showed you more respect than your contemptible views deserve.

Our (U.S/U.K) governments put them in power 60 years ago give or take so I say it’s high time we enjoy the fruits of their labor.

 

[dabeast]

How can you not understand that a westernized club would want to continue upholding its westernized rules? The fact that United is Global does not change the fact that most of its games and activities are based in Britain a westernized nation. I think its unreasonable for you to think because of how Global football has become United have to incorporate other cultures into its own just because of a few broadcasting rights here and there. It would be different if the league games where played in those countries. Its not a global business like Walmart which sets up grocery stores in different countries. Thats the only example when they should mix cultures.

Your essesntially trying to change what makes Manchester United what it is, a British club.

I have no problem with the club wanting to run in the way it sees fit even with “western values”. However, Western values today are not those promulgated by the now dead white men who founded Newton Heath. Also, the fact that we now have a global fan base might mean that the club itself might see fit to run itself according to less culturally specific values. This would be fine with me - we have had many white men owning our club, isn’t it time for a change? If we are to be more culturally inclusive to reflect our fan base, global owners would be preferred and I, for one, welcome Saudi ownership.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

I have no problem with the club wanting to run in the way it sees fit even with “western values”. However, Western values today are not those promulgated by the now dead white men who founded Newton Heath. Also, the fact that we now have a global fan base might mean that the club itself might see fit to run itself according to less culturally specific values. This would be fine with me - we have had many white men owning our club, isn’t it time for a change? If we are to be more culturally inclusive to reflect our fan base, global owners would be preferred and I, for one, welcome Saudi ownership.

It seems to me a pretty twisted thing to cite cultural inclusiveness as an argument for ownership of the Saudi state.

 

[Number32]

I had visited Saudi two years ago. I can assure you that western media politic frames to them are all lies. If you want the truth about them, just read some blogs of western people who live there or an independent journalist.

I don't like their plan to buy this club either, but its not about politics, I just hate sugar daddy rich owners who had ruined the beautiful of our football with money power in the transfer market. I have no problem with their politics or propaganda none sense, because the US and Europe politics are way more dangerous for human rights.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

How can you not understand that a westernized club would want to continue upholding its westernized rules? The fact that United is Global does not change the fact that most of its games and activities are based in Britain a westernized nation. I think its unreasonable for you to think because of how Global football has become United have to incorporate other cultures into its own just because of a few broadcasting rights here and there. It would be different if the league games where played in those countries. Its not a global business like Walmart which sets up grocery stores in different countries. Thats the only example when they should mix cultures.

Your essesntially trying to change what makes Manchester United what it is, a British club.

What’s a westernized rule? Flatten a neighborhood with a drone as opposed to public execution? I’m with you though the Saudis can afford drones and public executions are so last century.

 

[MackRobinson]

Thank you for the political science lesson but I’m confused as to how not being technically a dictatorship somehow makes the slaughters committed by the American regimes easier to swallow?

And thank you for completely missing the point. I never said the slaughters committed by American regimes are justified. However, it's ridiculous to compare the ownership of United by an American businessman to that of a member/insider of the Saudi Royal family. Not sure what's so difficult to understand.

 

[red thru&thru]

I wouldn't want the rulers of SA to own United no, nor would i rationalize it by trying to separate the politics/football and even if i could i definitely wouldn't go as far as championing or hoping for it. (not necessarily saying you are doing that)

You seem to be ok with Saudi ownership of the club you support fair enough. But i'm wondering do you just take every situation as it is then and have no objections to being associated with anyone or anything morally repugnant?

Or is there a line where you would feel similar to how i and others would feel about this takeover?

A real difficult question to answer. I can only assess each situation as it comes along. I mean, I objected the take over of the Glazers, I protested, eventually gave up my ST etc but I'm still here following my team.

Like I say, there are moral issues with UK, but I still leave here, pay my taxes and contribute to the selling of arms to the likes of SA and other countries. I hate the stuff that is going on in India. The rape issues they have, the way the treat women and children, how many poor people are out there etc but my family and children still go out there and contribute to the economy of the country and the atrocities are still carried out.

Like I ask, where do I start and stop with all the acts? Sometimes you just have to work backwards and start with, how these issues are effecting me and the people closest to me. It would be amazing to see if anyone on here doesn't work that way. If not, examples of this would be great and maybe there is something I can learn from this.

But I can't cry against human rights laws against another country when my own and the countries I visit are in a right state. A bit like all in the UK asking Bulgaria to be kicked out of European competitions for racism, when racism is rife in the UK itself and just narrow it down to individuals. A bit hypocritical to me

 

[UDontMessWith24]

And thank you for completely missing the point. I never said the slaughters committed by American regimes are justified. However, it's ridiculous to compare the ownership of United by an American businessman to that of a member/insider of the Saudi Royal family. Not sure what's so difficult to understand.

I didn’t say anything about justification.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Sure, Spurs's new stadium got a cheese room, but wait until they get a load of New Trafford's bonesaw area. Also known as the away changing rooms.

 

[KekiZeki]

Upholding certain “westernized rules”? Man United plays their games in Manchester but is entirely a global club now. According to a Kantar study posted by the BBC in 2013 (can’t post because I have 3 likes but you can easily Google it), 50 % of our fans live in Asia, 25% in the Middle East and Africa and the last 25% in Europe and the Americas. About 0.1% live in Manchester.

So, as a fan body, I don’t understand why we would be interested in upholding “westernized rules”. Rather, if each fan’s opinion counts equally, we would see our values as those of the United Nations where AFAIK the Saudis are valued members.

Because the club didn't succeed by playing their football under Asian rules, it's a western club from a western country. Chelsea are showing just how risky it could get if you have a foreigner who is an owner whose country might not play by your rules. He seems to have lost interest in what they're doing, they'll decline until he sells them, or he'll cling on to them as his only source of income and drain them of transfer funds. Putin don't like him anymore.
Saudi Arabia is not the most stable place in the world. Sure they have their wealth now, but they are oppressive regime. If there were to be a revolution and unrest there and the king lost his power there no one can know what would happen with his assets oversees.

Going Arab is tempting, but involves a lot of risk. We're not City so that oil rich owners are our only chane to greatness, we're already big and rich and we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat.

 

[MackRobinson]

I didn’t say anything about justification.

And I didn't say they were easier to swallow.