Which makes the 50 pages even more absurd
Saudi Takeover - Claim deal done
- Thread starter NWRed
- Start date
- Status
Not as a result of take over though. Debt is good if you use it to fund a new stadium or invest in new infrastructure. The debt we have now is purely because of the Glazer take over and by the numbers being bandied about in this thread it's atleast 50M per year.
"Hello. I am the New York Stock Exchange, and
I announce that some blokes have bought United."
Not sure about that, United's finances are reliant on a global following to attract global sponsors. We keep playing like we have the new generation of supporters won't be supporting United and a decline in finances will follow as a result..
It's only really a hypothetical in the sense that this Saudi deal hasn't been confirmed, it's more of an analogy.
Good businessman sell at the right time. Nothing is going to go up forever, there is no guarantee that United will become a top club in the world again, too much money and too many top clubs out there. It makes perfect t sense to sell, get a healthy profit and invest elsewhere. Don't need a PhD for that.
The reason we still have it is because it has benefits. Outside of sugar daddies if the owners had purchased the club without that debt, they would have increased the dividend rate which would have meant a lot more money out of the club.
He's a Tory.
Yet more nonsense, so you have to be out there actively working against every evil in the world, in order to have an opinion about it? I like to think I have morals, and if I know of something morally reprehensible, and I am in some way connected to it, I will do what I can to stop that. I don't want to stop supporting Utd in the slightest, but I don't want to have anything to do with the whitewashing of a horrible regime through the club. You make whatever choice you want, just don't try and excuse it.
Maybe this should be locked until there is some concrete news either way.
We have great marketing people; their next task is that market SA
Last edited by a moderator:
I highly doubt most people would give a shite who owns the club. Of course there will be a vocal minority, but that's mainly online and probably a fraction of that offline.
I'm starting to see City supporters pop up in my country, so if hypothetically, we are bought by them and start being top dogs again, the increase in the fanbase everywhere else will dwarf the tiny portion of fans who would stop supporting (by a huge margin)
Not saying this is good or bad, just that stopping supporting the club will achieve nothing other than personal satisfaction (which is arguably equally or more important of course). Highly doubt the new owners or the rest of the fanbase would care much.
I'm starting to see City supporters pop up in my country, so if hypothetically, we are bought by them and start being top dogs again, the increase in the fanbase everywhere else will dwarf the tiny portion of fans who would stop supporting (by a huge margin)
Not saying this is good or bad, just that stopping supporting the club will achieve nothing other than personal satisfaction (which is arguably equally or more important of course). Highly doubt the new owners or the rest of the fanbase would care much.
Agree. Absolutely state of the human race eh?
Not sure what labelling someone with arbitrary terms adds to the conversation. The Judeo-Christian substrate predicated Western liberalism, Islam does not espouse anything like the same seperation between church and state hence the difference in secularism. The argument that it's incorrect to decry potential Saudi ownership when the same opposition wasn't levelled at the Glazers despite the less than altruistic theme pervading American foreign policy is flawed beyond belief. The Glazers as wealthy as they are don't have the power to set the rules of the game and whilst you could get into a complicated discussion about the relationship between participation and culpability, I don't see how an argument could be made that the Glazers are in the same category as the Saudi Royal family. One exercises it's self-proclaimed sovereign right to set the rules of a game that we fundamentally disagree with as Westerners, the other does not.
Last edited:
You make having morals sound like a bad thing.
Dividends are fine by me if the club's competing and winning titles. If the owners take 50M in dividends while spending 70M net on transfers like they did this summer while the club's languishing in 6th place, I'd be equally furious. I'd still call for owners to sell in that case.
Whilst I am not a fan of this hypothetical takeover, I do think having a sugar daddy type owner is the only viable option in an over inflated market. In an ideal world we would be owned by the fans, there would be a reasonable price for all players (subjective I know)and states would not be permitted to own football teams even indirectly. But the current reality is different, we must look at all acceptable options to make us competitive if a theoretical takeover by any sugar daddy is possible, then it is a viable option in these times. There are other things about running the club that have to be rectified even with this supposed takeover, or any takeover. The running of the football side needs to be at the same level as the outstanding commercial department that is crucial to the long term health of this club.
Also whilst I do not wish to involve myself in a political debate. I find it incredibly naive of people to take positions against another country on this basis or that basis relating to them buying our club, considering that our country is essentially ignoring any incidents due the financially beneficial relationship we have with the Saudis. Are we suddenly going to abandon the U.K because they haven't ostracized S.A properly or cut ties. The majority of nations commit what normal society calls crimes and violate peoples rights in whichever manner suits them but they aren't caught or it gets brushed under the carpet by our media but because it suits us we think we are clean and innocent. Does anyone really think that we haven't committed murder or other things that are morally reprehensible as a state, we just don't get caught. All countries do or have done so in the past, All countries have laws that are not appropriate or current with our times. We should really leave the politics out of these kind of things otherwise we have to look at our own country rather than selectively ignoring our own faults and critique others.
Judge not and all that.
Also whilst I do not wish to involve myself in a political debate. I find it incredibly naive of people to take positions against another country on this basis or that basis relating to them buying our club, considering that our country is essentially ignoring any incidents due the financially beneficial relationship we have with the Saudis. Are we suddenly going to abandon the U.K because they haven't ostracized S.A properly or cut ties. The majority of nations commit what normal society calls crimes and violate peoples rights in whichever manner suits them but they aren't caught or it gets brushed under the carpet by our media but because it suits us we think we are clean and innocent. Does anyone really think that we haven't committed murder or other things that are morally reprehensible as a state, we just don't get caught. All countries do or have done so in the past, All countries have laws that are not appropriate or current with our times. We should really leave the politics out of these kind of things otherwise we have to look at our own country rather than selectively ignoring our own faults and critique others.
Judge not and all that.
Last edited:
Poor analogy. The British Royal family as an entity are as far removed from British culture as they could ever be whilst serving as a living artefact of British heritage and tradition which is why they have zero political influence. We certainly don't live as if we believe certain selected bloodlines have a divine right to rule over the masses. Sure, some people still adore them and will line the streets of Buckingham palace whenever there's a huge occassion, but some people also adore Cheryl Cole and who really needs an excuse for a day out in the sun? The Queen is a ceremonial head of state but our real head of state is democracy, rule of law, separation of powers etc. That's not the case in Saudi Arabia.
Last edited:
Agreed, people are starting to talk a load of bollocks about morality etc and surely that’s been done to death in other threads.
But I'm quite positive you said you live in Saudia Arabia yesterday?
I'm not sure about your point but it's worth knowing that the club didn't only spend 70m net on transfers, this summer the club spent 178m on registrations. And the club spent 96% of its revenue on the club itself.
Cheers, it’s been a while since I had to look at that question. There hasn’t been any big movement in the share price recently so I am guessing the market is not hearing much serious takeover talk.
Whilst I don't really have a position here on a theoretical takeover (largely because I think the reported interest is bollocks) but I don't think I'd stop supporting club if they did buy it, nor do I think I'd stop in any semi-realistic scenario.
Can't imagine life without United, basically.
Can't imagine life without United, basically.
If people don't want this sale, they should do something about it. Organise some protests. Get the Glazer's to make some changes, ie getting rid of Ed and replacing him. They should make a stand for their beloved United.
Finally you admit that you don't love United.
Eh?Finally you admit that you don't love United.
Come on man, don't argue just for the sake of it. You know what I mean - Outs were Lukaku + Smalling + Darmian = €70M, Ins were 160M Eur, Net = €90M ~= £78M in 2019
2018 was even more abysmal. We spent a net of €50M =~ £43MM
We could've spent another £100M extra without the glazer dividends + debts just in the last two years.
No we couldn't have because the dividends are 23m per year and not having to pay them would have increased our taxes.
Don’t see why anyone would protest about an imaginary sale.
Very eloquently spoken.
I wish I could class watching football as a hobby, but when I've spent so much of my lifetime either watching it or talking about it, I think its gone beyond a simple hobby.
Don't know why they'd get so wound up in a forum and say they'd give up United. After all, it's imaginary.
That’s all very good and well.
If what you say has any relevance, can you share with me the UK law or policy that validates this morality of yours, stopping Saudi investors into owning any UK organisation.
Surely westerners should have stopped using all Saudi exports too. And also selling western exports to Saudi.
That’s essentially the summation of your beautifully written opinion.
Look forward.
The relationship between the moral culture embodied by a people and the law isn't a one way street. The law isn't some monolithic structure that arbiters morality otherwise it would never change, so to make the case that just because some thing isn't illegal then the bad that it does can't outweigh the good, or worse still: "there can't possibly be anything wrong in it" is objectively thoughtless. You don't get to blindly defer your moral intuition purely to what's written in law and call yourself a responsible human being.
And who is the judge of that? You?
UK has the oldest and most mature legal system in the world. I'm not holding my breath.
How does the law change if it's always perfect?
At least we'll get the Audi sponsorship, Saudis in Audis.
Well I haven't seen any substantive UK movement to stop selling UK weapons to Saudi to kill Yemani's with, nor to stop buying their oil. I haven't even seen any substantive movement to break any form of the relationship since the Khashoggi affair. Are you telling me its upto Manchester United fans?
You're point is laughable given its the west who put the Al-Saud family into power, as puppets, so they could gain their oil. And Western governments have then propped them up ever since, selling them weapons and providing them council to ensure making no civil uprising could ever happen.
All you and many others have done in this thread is display selective morality. Thats fine, we can all think what we like, but others can also think it's deeply hypocritical.
It is indeed yourself that sets your moral compass, I'm not share or even understand your position on that subject but I have to respect it.
- Status