Saudi sports minister gives update on buying club from Glazers

[dabeast]

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.
". 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.

I would argue that being owned by another foreigner (yes, the US is a foreign country to the UK) is just as bad or good as a UK entity. The governance of Man Utd is determined by corporate laws of Britain and so it doesn't matter whether our owners hail from a different place. If SA loses interest and capacity to support United they will sell us and somebody else will take over. This is the way our club has always been run.

"Saudi Arabia is not the most stable place in the world." Really? What is your definition of stability? The House of Saud has been in power in previous phases and since 1902 in this phase. Wouldn't you say that Britain's inability to decide about Brexit, for example, makes it far more unstable? What would happen if there were a revolution and unrest in Britain (since it seems to be losing its position on the world stage)?

"we're already big and rich and we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat". If you believe that we are, in fact, already big and rich then we are watching different clubs. Relative to others we have, for more than a decade now, been unable to compete to buy reinforcements. It was only SAF's genius who allowed us to be competitive at first but ever since his retirement we have declined precipitously.

Rocking the boat, OTOH, is in neither your or my control. So, I am watching this Saudi story with interest and hope that they will bring a new era to my beloved club.

 

[westmeath]

I would argue that being owned by another foreigner (yes, the US is a foreign country to the UK) is just as bad or good as a UK entity. The governance of Man Utd is determined by corporate laws of Britain and so it doesn't matter whether our owners hail from a different place. If SA loses interest and capacity to support United they will sell us and somebody else will take over. This is the way our club has always been run.

"Saudi Arabia is not the most stable place in the world." Really? What is your definition of stability? The House of Saud has been in power in previous phases and since 1902 in this phase. Wouldn't you say that Britain's inability to decide about Brexit, for example, makes it far more unstable? What would happen if there were a revolution and unrest in Britain (since it seems to be losing its position on the world stage)?

"we're already big and rich and we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat". If you believe that we are, in fact, already big and rich then we are watching different clubs. Relative to others we have, for more than a decade now, been unable to compete to buy reinforcements. It was only SAF's genius who allowed us to be competitive at first but ever since his retirement we have declined precipitously.

Rocking the boat, OTOH, is in neither your or my control. So, I am watching this Saudi story with interest and hope that they will bring a new era to my beloved club.

Have to laugh at you trumping the stability of the “house of Saud”. How many elections have they won? How many opposition parties are there in Saudi Arabia.

Murdering dictators is a factual description of the Saudi regime. No matter what you think of the Glazers (I think they are asset stripping wankers personally) they are a million times more acceptable owners that the Saudis.

 

[KekiZeki]

I would argue that being owned by another foreigner (yes, the US is a foreign country to the UK) is just as bad or good as a UK entity. The governance of Man Utd is determined by corporate laws of Britain and so it doesn't matter whether our owners hail from a different place. If SA loses interest and capacity to support United they will sell us and somebody else will take over. This is the way our club has always been run.

"Saudi Arabia is not the most stable place in the world." Really? What is your definition of stability? The House of Saud has been in power in previous phases and since 1902 in this phase. Wouldn't you say that Britain's inability to decide about Brexit, for example, makes it far more unstable? What would happen if there were a revolution and unrest in Britain (since it seems to be losing its position on the world stage)?

"we're already big and rich and we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat". If you believe that we are, in fact, already big and rich then we are watching different clubs. Relative to others we have, for more than a decade now, been unable to compete to buy reinforcements. It was only SAF's genius who allowed us to be competitive at first but ever since his retirement we have declined precipitously.

Rocking the boat, OTOH, is in neither your or my control. So, I am watching this Saudi story with interest and hope that they will bring a new era to my beloved club.

Corporate laws or not, once the club's ownership starts working against the club debts start pilling up. The richer you are the quicker it piles on. It doesn't have to lead to demise of the club but it would be enough to set us back for a decade!
No thanks, we're far from skint and in need of an investor. They can keep their oil money as far as I am concerned. Saudi outdated rules could get us in trouble with the FA or UEFA over gay rights for example, or not giving Israeli players a chance for example. Thanks but no thanks!

 

[stevoc]

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

Listen mate i hear what you're saying but there are no discussions or rumours about United being bought by the current UK government, so that argument has always been a straw man for me. I've more reason than most in the UK to have strong feelings against past UK governments because of atrocities they have been complicit in directly. Not a case of them just selling arms to another country who is committing the atrocities. But none of us have a choice in where we were born and most don't really have much choice in where we have to live.

I'll be more specific and would appreciate it if you could answer as i'm genuinely interested. Which person/people/group would you object to owning United? Where do you draw that line is there a line?

And by object i mean to the point where you would seriously consider not being able to support the club from that point on as opposed to ''i don't like this lot but i'll still follow my team'. Because i didn't want the Glazers either but it didn't stop me supporting United, but if the Saudi Royal family bought United i honestly don't know if i could still support the club.

 

[Dion]

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.

So lets not let them run football clubs? Pretty clear the solution.

I only have to deal with your contemptible views for a few seconds, you have to live with them.

 

[Dion]

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.

Why would I want to differentiate?

 

[Valar Morghulis]

So lets not let them run football clubs? Pretty clear the solution.

You've made this point a few times and it is correct that states really shouldn't be allowed to own football clubs. But they are allowed to.

How do we stop them? Can we stop them?

 

[TRUERED89]

Well at least we can parade the morality open tour bus parade at the end of the season, could these teams do that? At least when fans turn up to OT to watch tepid football we call all chant, "Moral values, moral values. Human rights, human rights!"

 

[Rado_N]

I see this topic is still largely being discussed by utter morons.

Same as it ever was.

 

[stepic]

what i don't get is why we have the same topic opened every second week as soon as any random shite piece of news comes out, before it inevitably gets closed because it devolves into the same inane discussion. i know we say no to mega threads, but this just encourages the same BS conversation over and over again.

 

[Member 39557]

I see this topic is still largely being discussed by utter morons.

Same as it ever was.

Other topics have morons too, you can't just attribute being moronic to the saudi thread.
Other football clubs have morons too, and look how succesful they are. They'll be celebrating with their trophies and we'll be chanting "intelligent comments, intelligent comments, lock shit threads, lock shit threads" We can't be left behind just because we look down on morons.

 

[dabeast]

I see this topic is still largely being discussed by utter morons.

Same as it ever was.

Yes. I agree.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Apparently the Saudi Aramco IPO hasn't gone too well and hasn't rolled in anywhere near the expected investments.

This takeover isn't going to happen anytime soon, certainly not at £4bn levels.

 

[Rado_N]

Other topics have morons too, you can't just attribute being moronic to the saudi thread.
Other football clubs have morons too, and look how succesful they are. They'll be celebrating with their trophies and we'll be chanting "intelligent comments, intelligent comments, lock shit threads, lock shit threads" We can't be left behind just because we look down on morons.

 

[stevoc]

what i don't get is why we have the same topic opened every second week as soon as any random shite piece of news comes out,

Because some are so desperate for it to happen i think they are hoping to will it into existence.

 

[SteveJ]

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.

@Number32
Can you explain your remarks a bit more fully, please?

 

[hungrywing]

what i don't get is why we have the same topic opened every second week as soon as any random shite piece of news comes out, before it inevitably gets closed because it devolves into the same inane discussion. i know we say no to mega threads, but this just encourages the same BS conversation over and over again.

Anyone remember what the reasoning was against megathreads? I remember thinking at the time, 'Okay, I guess that makes sense even though I don't agree with it'.

 

[matt10000]

I see this topic is still largely being discussed by utter morons.

Same as it ever was.

Yes. I agree.

Having read some of your posts so do I @dabeast

 

[Toblerone92]

I feel the real objection from some fans about a Saudi takeover is that we would essentially become just like City. Their fans (yes, all five of them) would have a field day.

 

[Johan07]

I would argue that being owned by another foreigner (yes, the US is a foreign country to the UK) is just as bad or good as a UK entity. The governance of Man Utd is determined by corporate laws of Britain and so it doesn't matter whether our owners hail from a different place. If SA loses interest and capacity to support United they will sell us and somebody else will take over. This is the way our club has always been run.

"Saudi Arabia is not the most stable place in the world." Really? What is your definition of stability? The House of Saud has been in power in previous phases and since 1902 in this phase. Wouldn't you say that Britain's inability to decide about Brexit, for example, makes it far more unstable? What would happen if there were a revolution and unrest in Britain (since it seems to be losing its position on the world stage)?

"we're already big and rich and we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat". If you believe that we are, in fact, already big and rich then we are watching different clubs. Relative to others we have, for more than a decade now, been unable to compete to buy reinforcements. It was only SAF's genius who allowed us to be competitive at first but ever since his retirement we have declined precipitously.

Rocking the boat, OTOH, is in neither your or my control. So, I am watching this Saudi story with interest and hope that they will bring a new era to my beloved club.

No it is not. Red Football is registered in the Cayman Islands. So the corporate govenance is determined by Cayman Island law combined with NYSE regulations.

 

[syrian_scholes]

I see this topic is still largely being discussed by utter morons.

Same as it ever was.

I just like your confidence about not being a moron, and I wonder what happened to attack the posts not the posters or does that not apply to you?

 

[Dion]

You've made this point a few times and it is correct that states really shouldn't be allowed to own football clubs. But they are allowed to.

How do we stop them? Can we stop them?

Adapt the fit and proper test to ensure that none of the capital involved in the purchase of the club can be in any be linked to someone who is part of the governing apparatus of any country.

 

[NinjaZombie]

Have to laugh at you trumping the stability of the “house of Saud”. How many elections have they won? How many opposition parties are there in Saudi Arabia.

Murdering dictators is a factual description of the Saudi regime. No matter what you think of the Glazers (I think they are asset stripping wankers personally) they are a million times more acceptable owners that the Saudis.

He's not wrong though. The Sauds have been in power for more than a century.

Their morals are deplorable but speaking in terms of stability, they are just that.

 

[VidaRed]

He's not wrong though. The Sauds have been in power for more than a century.

Their morals are deplorable but speaking in terms of stability, they are just that.

Remove the support of the west to the house of saud and they wont last a while.

 

[SER19]

Is this dead yet? I bloody well hope so

 

[Rado_N]

I just like your confidence about not being a moron, and I wonder what happened to attack the posts not the posters or does that not apply to you?

nope.

 

[red thru&thru]

Listen mate i hear what you're saying but there are no discussions or rumours about United being bought by the current UK government, so that argument has always been a straw man for me. I've more reason than most in the UK to have strong feelings against past UK governments because of atrocities they have been complicit in directly. Not a case of them just selling arms to another country who is committing the atrocities. But none of us have a choice in where we were born and most don't really have much choice in where we have to live.

I'll be more specific and would appreciate it if you could answer as i'm genuinely interested. Which person/people/group would you object to owning United? Where do you draw that line is there a line?

And by object i mean to the point where you would seriously consider not being able to support the club from that point on as opposed to ''i don't like this lot but i'll still follow my team'. Because i didn't want the Glazers either but it didn't stop me supporting United, but if the Saudi Royal family bought United i honestly don't know if i could still support the club.

I never once said UK government are buying United, MATE. We don't have a choice of where we are born but we have a choice where we live. So if someone is on their high horse about moral issues, don't pick and choose when to justify it. You may have the choice to stop supporting United but I couldn't. That's the difference between you and I at this moment in time.

 

[stevoc]

I never once said UK government are buying United, MATE. We don't have a choice of where we are born but we have a choice where we live. So if someone is on their high horse about moral issues, don't pick and choose when to justify it. You may have the choice to stop supporting United but I couldn't. That's the difference between you and I at this moment in time.

To be fair i never said you did mate but you brought them up in your last post as many in these threads continually do, despite the UK government having little or no relevance to this discussion, which was my point. And no not everyone has a realistic choice of which country they live in, in fact very few do. Most people have family members Young and old to look after and they can't just up sticks and emigrate so while possible it's not practical for the majority. And even if they could which country could they move to that hasn't been or isn't currently involved in the same type of shady shit that the UK government has been over the years, very few i'd imagine. So it's a pointless discussion from the get go.

And just as everyone has the theoretical choice to leave the country of their birth, where they've lived all/most of their lives and leave behind all or most of their family/friends. Every football fan has the choice to stop supporting the football club they've supported most of their lives. Both would be very, very difficult decisions but both are possible for virtually everyone.

Finally it is of course your right to choose not to answer my question as to which person you would morally object to owning United. No problems there mate, have a nice day.

 

[Redplane]

Aren't there any rich Ozzies who can buy us?

Suddenly chants with cnut in it would become chants of friendly acknowledgement.

 

[dabeast]

Having read some of your posts so do I @dabeast

I am glad we agree on my posts, @matt10000. Are you going to weigh in so I can agree on your posts too?

 

[Adnan]

Michael Knighton who almost bought United for £10m in the late 80s and spent over 60 days on the board before pulling out, says according to his contacts the Saudis have a £4b bid on the table for the club. The full interview is in the below article by Simon Mullock.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-who-could-bought-man-21050972

 

[Suedesi]

Michael Knighton who almost bought United for £10m in the late 80s and spent over 60 days on the board before pulling out, says according to his contacts the Saudis have a £4b bid on the table for the club. The full interview is in the below article by Simon Mullock.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-who-could-bought-man-21050972

And do you fecking believe him?

 

[Adnan]

And do you fecking believe him?

I do think there's truth to what he's saying. I've spoken to quite a few people who are associated with the club and one of those being Barney who local fans know quite well from his fanzine that he distributes among fans. He has been adamant for a long while that the Saudis want to buy the club and I do trust him. I've also been told by someone else that the Glazers will sell for £5b.

Make of that, what you want.

 

[Valar Morghulis]

A £4b bid "on the table" haha get the feck out of here, the Glazers would be all over that like a fly on shit, that's such a ridiculous return on their investment they'd think they were in dreamland.

 

[Suedesi]

I do think there's truth to what he's saying. I've spoken to quite a few people who are associated with the club and one of those being Barney who local fans know quite well from his fanzine that he distributes among fans. He has been adamant for a long while that the Saudis want to buy the club and I do trust him. I've also been told by someone else that the Glazers will sell for £5b.

Make of that, what you want.

If you head to Yahoo Finance, you'll see that the stock is trading at $18.45 giving it a USD $3B Market Cap.

If you think the club has an offer for GBP 4B on the table or USD $5.26B, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go double your money?

Go buy some stock, the Saudis will buy you out at $30 a share...

 

[Adnan]

If you head to Yahoo Finance, you'll see that the stock is trading at $18.45 giving it a USD $3B Market Cap.

If you think the club has an offer for GBP 4B on the table or USD $5.26B, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go double your money?

Go buy some stock, the Saudis will buy you out at $30 a share...

I'm not sure why you're getting your knickers in a twist over this.

I don't know if there's a £4b offer on the table but I believe there could be some truth in what Knighton is saying and i've explained why. I also couldn't care less about what the stock is trading at because i'm not a gambler and never will be but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Interval]

If you head to Yahoo Finance, you'll see that the stock is trading at $18.45 giving it a USD $3B Market Cap.

If you think the club has an offer for GBP 4B on the table or USD $5.26B, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go double your money?

Go buy some stock, the Saudis will buy you out at $30 a share...

Probably because the listed shares have no voting rights attached to them. Theyll always trade at a discount. It's quite likely that the shares that Glazers own maybe worth more.

 

[Infordin]

The amount of money that Manchester United spend is not the problem. You’ve spent just about as much as anyone since Ferguson retired. The problem is the players you’ve spent your money on.

 

[Class of 63]

Aren't there any rich Ozzies who can buy us?

Suddenly chants with cnut in it would become chants of friendly acknowledgement.

Ozzy Osbourne is at the Manchester Arena(02/11/2020), bet he's got a few bob.

 

[Number32]

@Number32
Can you explain your remarks a bit more fully, please?

About the human rights thing, there are several fair courts before somebody was sentenced to dead, and stats wise its lower than another country who has similar dead penalty. But the media always frame the news about the kingdom is barbaric because they are too stubborn to change the laws that didn't suit western culture. I might be wrong, but I saw what I saw, you can leave your car unlock anywhere because no one would stole it, its hard to find robbery or criminals in public. They have their own laws on their land, and you have to respect that, no one would harm you if you follow the rules.
The conversation of their International politic is also very bias here, regarding the US and Nato are behind their International policy. At least until there are no oil fields to be exploited, because the whole modern world depends on that energy today.

I hate to talk about politics, but I read a lot of bias comments here. Saudi, US, and Nato are all on the same boat, so lets stop to talk about this propaganda none sense.