It's mad innit. Bonkers. The difference between me and these hypothetical hypocrites is I have enough passion for things outside of football that I'd simply stop following United and slowly fall away from football in general. Whereas these hypothetical hypocrites cannot let a simple sport slip away from their lives so theyll still line the pockets of a murderous regime but find ways to justify it. That's the difference. Honestly - every single person in this thread claimijng to be disgusted by a potential Saudi takeover better have the minerals to cancel their season tickets and stand by their disgust rather than spending £140 on a new United home strip with Neymar #10 on the back.
Saudi Takeover - Claim deal done
- Thread starter NWRed
- Start date
- Status
Those visits aren’t about a takeover though, they already do business with Saudis and that’s why they go their regularly. Everyone jumps to same conclusion every time they go.
It is not only about being legitimate businessman or not! Saudi government would use united as their propaganda medium, United can be successful without them but they can buy much much more attentions in international level, you only hear from Bin-salman in the case of crime or being rubbed by Trump but after United deal, crime news and etc would get minorities for them. Yes you do not watch football for club owners because they do not try to be bigger than football or the club but I have some doubts about Saudi government, they will definitely get bigger than anythings in our club including legends, our icons, history! If it is happening, Glazers are selling everything to them. They are the men who sold the world!
I hope we don't sign Neymar
I understand what your point is, but I'm sure you know that in these places only money talks. We as fans should be above that if we truly care about the club, but I've figured that the large fan organisations must have an interest to keep the current situation as it is. It seems that the larger the scales of an operation get, the harder it is to hold people responsible for their actions and ask for accountability.
True. Theres always silver linings.
Some are kidding themselves thinking whoever buys the club will like the manager in charge. Say it does happen and they come with their own vision like Sheik Mansour did I doubt that would include dicking around with Ole's 3 year plan and 'the United way'. Maybe it would be good to have someone who isn't influenced by the romanticism
The difference this time is that two people who work for the Saudi's have either teased the idea or fuelled the fire regards a takeover.
With or without Manchester United the Saudis will always buy weapons from your governments and if your governments decline then Russia will step in and supply them. This world is just full of cnuts who will do anything for money.
I think if they ever buy United, which is by no means a done deal, they will find ways of incorporating people like Sir Alex, Sir Bobby and other club luminaries just like the Glazers have kept the two around for optics.
Kinda reminds me of United in the 90's and 00's, we bought who we wanted and didnt try to hide it Haha.
Well that’s disappointing. Hope this isn’t true.
The City takeover set a precedence and their lawyers will have a field day in court challenging this. From the looks of things it appears as if MBS will use a proxy hence the talk of a Saudi investor not the Saudi sovereign fund. But as of now nothing has happened but its looking inevitable.
I would like to add ”that we know of„ to that sentence.
Yes we may not know What Glazer family do or about crimes they have committed but we know what Saudi have done, do not you think knowing bring responsibilities?
Yep, this will definitely happen. People who will lose interest in United soon as it does, should start to think about their exit plan.
Just a point I would like to make, all governments are corrupt at some level, treat their people like garbage, think they have a divine say over world politics, history of assassination and brutality, war, slavery, working conditions, massacre of innocent civilians over land and resources. I doubt the Glazers made all their business acquisitions legitimately.
My point being, it would take a government or world nation that could buy United, and almost everyone with that sort of money has been upto no good. We ain't ever gonna get a saint in charge of the club, and maybe we could get someone a little less 'inhumane', if that's the right word, but corruption would still be there.
So in my opinion, let them have the club, dont have to like them, so long as Uniteds needs are met and actually push the club forward, that's the best we can hope for. Also being a little less, or alot less, corrupt, doesn't stop them from being in the same bracket.
My point being, it would take a government or world nation that could buy United, and almost everyone with that sort of money has been upto no good. We ain't ever gonna get a saint in charge of the club, and maybe we could get someone a little less 'inhumane', if that's the right word, but corruption would still be there.
So in my opinion, let them have the club, dont have to like them, so long as Uniteds needs are met and actually push the club forward, that's the best we can hope for. Also being a little less, or alot less, corrupt, doesn't stop them from being in the same bracket.
Glexit.
Hopefully it doesn't take as long as its sibling! HahahaGlexit.
Well, I guess there are better "government or world nation that could buy United".
FYI:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/saudi-arabia
God doesn't exist simple as. And if he does why worship something that believes women (a thing he created) are second rate. I'll criticise any belief that conveys anyone on this earth as being lesser than something else, regardless if if they can make a football team I like good again.
I’ve never once believed a single one of the rumoured links with a Saudi takeover and I see nothing here to justify changing that now.
STC, while a major investor, is one of many, and don't have control over policy.
I would rather they not be involved at all, but they are not in full control, and the Saudi Royal Family is not the main beneficiary of United profits.
Once they purchase the club, it becomes a bragging piece for people who allegedly fund terrorism, and engage directly in human rights suppression.
So, it's a matter of degrees: current level of Saudi involvement is troubling, complete Saudi ownership is repulsive.
Agreed mate. Complete 'atheist' here but I hate using that term because it suggests I believe in something, which i don't. But I respect anyone's beliefs as long as it/they don't harm anyone else. Which for hardline Islam/Saudis, isnt true. But doesn't apply to every religious person.
Could be meetings about our new shirt sponsor, no?
dunno do you not see signs from the Glazers?
Will the Infidel Trinity statue survive?
There isnt really a religion that does so. You should educate yourself before spouting rubbish.
I don’t believe in God myself but people are free to believe what they wish without being called morons
I came off wrong but that is what I was trying to say. I don't mind religion if it's practiced privately but if it affects people then feck it.
Anyway there seems like a lot of smoke for there not to be something in this
It was a meme that emerged from quotes from /r/atheism to poke fun at the arrogance of teenage atheists.
What's r/atheism?
Actually would be the best thing out of a new takeover. Our fanbase too unambitious and the owners are too passive, so unless we have a ruthless visionary driving the club to success we'll always be a bit shit.
They are though and not just in Suadi Arabia. I agree though but even in the UK we have the legacy of laws affected by religion and the church
Tony Blair being named Director of Football is worth a bet.
Finally!
I meant no offence I was pretty sure on such an anti Trump forum that nobody would want laws based on religion. My parents are religious but they practice on their own time and that's fine. They're idiots for believing in that shit but it doesn't harm anyone. Any state that has their laws based on it though is unacceptable and it's as simple as that.
So step back and have a little think about what you’re actually doing. You’re ridiculing and oppressing people’s right to free speech and right to think and believe what they want to believe because it’s not in line with what you think and what you believe. Sounds familiar, no?
Should a country's law be based on religion?
Ah OK man. I do see your point and I apologise for being so explosive about it. It's just in terms of SA I can never accept the way they treat people in the name of religion. I do apologise for not stating that al religious people are like that.
You couldnt make it up
It does and that fact makes religious people suddenly complaining when it's done to them sound a bit hypocritical. At every interaction in my entire life they have never made any bones about their opinion that I'd be a better human if I followed their teachings (Goes for christians and muslims, only religion I've been in a bit of contact with that didn't was sikh). But no one dare suggest someone might be a better human for not following them!
Last edited:
- Status