I can say I would turn away from United but the first game v Liverpool at Anfield with Mbappe up top would suck me back in.
Its not something I think Im able to walk away from.
3-0 up at Halftime v Real and Im watching that second half
I can say I would turn away from United but the first game v Liverpool at Anfield with Mbappe up top would suck me back in.
Its not something I think Im able to walk away from.
3-0 up at Halftime v Real and Im watching that second half
That's the original badge - and it's cool.
Point 1 (Plastic club):You made an arbitrary distinction to justify having a sugar daddy club. The point is if the Saudis buy the club there is no way you can say a word to Chelsea or City of being a plastic club. It's a delusion to think otherwise.
The hypocrites are out in full force.Sorry but it doesn’t sit right with me that people on here are trying to downplay the atrocities committed by the Saudis after all the shit that the forum has given city about their owners’ similar affairs
I like it tooThat's the original badge - and it's cool.
Now you're talking. Mitchell by his side and Rose coaching the team.They will without doubt go all out to unsurp all the competitors no question and they'll do it IMO. Someone like a Ragnick would be brought into to oversee the recruitment too.
I think the terms as you're using them have little constructive value. They're typically used to differentiate those who firmly don't believe in God be those who are unsure of the existence of God. What you're suggesting is that they're basically interchangeable which is totally unproductive as a means of defining a religious stance.Nope, this is a misconception of the term. Of both terms, as a matter of fact.
As the man who coined the term agnostic said:
This view is perfectly compatible with atheism: it is unknown or unknowable whether gods exist, therefore a man shall not profess belief in them.
Atheism merely means 'without god' - it encompasses those who categorically reject the concept, yes, but also those who simply do not believe in any god without asserting that gods definitely don't exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
They also often invest heavily in the local community and increase employment - something that no-one has yet mentioned.If this is true things will get very interesting. Nobody can deny the Saudis have been involved in some very ugly incidents at best and human rights violations at worst. On the other hand, we have a couple of examples that show these Middle Eastern ownership groups take success on the pitch very seriously and put a lot of effort and thought, as well as unfathomable amounts of money, into their project to make it both successful and sustainable. They also put together a coherent structure to their (what we Yanks call) front office, and do so by putting football people in place instead of a wormy banker. If the club succeeds I'll be the first to admit I'd enjoy it regardless of who the owners are, but it's always going to be a hanging cloud.
Being an agnostic myself I always thought it meant you basically don’t know. There could be a god but who really knows?Nope, this is a misconception of the term. Of both terms, as a matter of fact.
As the man who coined the term agnostic said:
This view is perfectly compatible with atheism: it is unknown or unknowable whether gods exist, therefore a man shall not profess belief in them.
Atheism merely means 'without god' - it encompasses those who categorically reject the concept, yes, but also those who simply do not believe in any god without asserting that gods definitely don't exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
But they will own the team. Their money will be used to buy United players, they'll celebrated with the team if United ever win anything, United will play tour games in saudi arabia.But you're not supporting them. You're supporting a club that will be there after they're gone and before they came.
This is obviously why club reps were in Saudi, takeover rumour was inevitable and will be exactly the same when they visit Saudi next year. Shows how desperate fans are that willing to believe crap posted by a nobody on LinkedIn.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ws/man-utd-saudi-arabia-takeover-17189875.amp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ctor-Richard-Arnold-Ed-Woodward-Solskjaer/amp
Not a takeover according to the above articles
Can I ask why ? Since the rumours came out it got me thinking about foreign money around the city. They might be batshit crazy but they're the ones buying the multi-million pound pads, buying up land and building those sky scrapers.Can not fathom how anyone would think this is OK? How this is better than the Glazers.
Genuinely would be the end for me and a large number of supporters I reckon. Wouldn’t want them anywhere near the country, let alone Manchester.
Or just bring in executives who know what they are doing on the football side. I think United, even under the Glazers, would be so much different if we had VDS as our CEO instead of Woodward. We focus on th wrong things and consistently make poor decisions like keeping failing managers for far too long and signing overpriced flops on a regular basis.You mean, they might hold executives to account for non-financial performance?
Might as well put this train wreck of a thread to bed.This is obviously why club reps were in Saudi, takeover rumour was inevitable and will be exactly the same when they visit Saudi next year. Shows how desperate fans are that willing to believe crap posted by a nobody on LinkedIn.
Saudi money is already being used to buy players.But they will own the team. Their money will be used to buy United players, they'll celebrated with the team if United ever win anything, United will play tour games in saudi arabia.
Similar to how a lot Newcastle fans won't support the club until Ashley pisses off, I'm guessing I'll do something similar if the Saudi Royal family buys United.
Thankfully, it's just your opinion.I don't know why people are getting on their high horses regarding us being owned by Saudi Arabians. It is not as if the USA is squeaky clean, is it?
I don't like Saudi Arabia as much as any sane person would, but anybody who is going to leave behind a club with the history of Manchester United based on who happens to own us is just a drama queen, in my opinion.
You do know the Glazer don't own the United States, right ?I don't know why people are getting on their high horses regarding us being owned by Saudi Arabians. It is not as if the USA is squeaky clean, is it?
Yeah United has been doing revenue stuff with the Royal Family for a while now and of course you can be too moral about this stuff as well...... capitalism(I'm sure a ton a United shirt are made by child labour etc)but as actual owners of United is for me anyway just a step too far.Saudi money is already being used to buy players.
Why are the saudis owning that much money and are able to disregard human rights? Because of oil, and so in the big picture because of the system/capitalism.Problem with Saudis isnt capitalism....
We're not owned by the USA.I don't know why people are getting on their high horses regarding us being owned by Saudi Arabians. It is not as if the USA is squeaky clean, is it?
I don't like Saudi Arabia as much as any sane person would, but anybody who is going to leave behind a club with the history of Manchester United based on who happens to own us is just a drama queen, in my opinion.
You aren’t supporting them you’re supporting Man Utd. It doesn’t mean you agree with what the owners have done.Thankfully, it's just your opinion.
Saudi's taking over United would be me done with club football for a while. It's going to be hard but I cannot justify supporting a genocidal regime voluntarily through a game I love.
Let's just hope all this takeover news is rubbish.
You are advocating for United getting pushed back to the top of the tree because of their sugar daddy owners. That has nothing to do with history or United generating their own money (which would negate the reason for Suadi ownership if that actually mattered)I think you need to revise your understanding of the phrase ‘plastic club.’
It’s very definition is to describe a run of the mill club with very little history that were pushed to the top of the tree purely because of their sugar daddy owners.
What can you not see about the difference there?
United generates it own money, unlike our competitors we have had to do it in spite of our rather than because of them!
Wages are always factor since, together with transfer fees, it factors into the budget for playing staff. Regardless you completely making this up since you or I don't know what the actual budget would be without the Glazers. Furthermore, why would this even matter if you plan on using Suadi funds? You talk about United making it's own money yet you want a cash injection from the Saudis. Makes very little sense.United can potentially outspend any club in world football, not wages, purchase power. Yes we have spent large amounts but it’s the structure within the club that has made this spending fruitless.
The Saudi’s replace the owners draining the club which increases our spending power and at the same time remove the clown that is Ed Woodward and replace him with a DOF. Instant improvement.
What is the rule exactly? Do you need to be sponsored by a sugar daddy to win? If that's the case why on earth is anyone watching football? Tottenham under Poch (minus the last 6 months) and Leicester come to mind seem to have done well without groveling at the feet of the Saudis, begging for handouts.Liverpool rather than being the trend are the exception to the rule. Klopp has been unreal for them in a lesser way that SAF was for us.
Significant amount of self righteous alarmism as well.So much whataboutism in this thread.
Please explain.Significant amount of self righteous alarmism as well.
Funny cause there are capitalist states which aren't doing Saudis are.Why are the saudis owning that much money and are able to disregard human rights? Because of oil, and so in the big picture because of the system/capitalism.
It all comes down to it when you see the big picture. Just my opinion mate.
No such thing. It's arrogance to believe United have a god-given right to be a top club.It’s either this or we continue to be run into the ground and robbed of our true standing as a top club.
We are one of the biggest clubs in the world, so yes we do. You think Real or Barca would stand for the shambles we’ve been watching?No such thing. It's arrogance to believe United have a god-given right to be a top club.
We don't need money coming in, we just need to stop it being leeched out by the current owners.The transfer muppets that are the ones that are mostly for it. The underlying subtext to those saying ‘I want us competing at the pinnacle of European football again’ is that they want to see unprecedented, supercharged level of spending (moreso than the 800-900 million Woodward has already spent during his tenure). Show me a football fan that doesn’t want their team competing at the very top! It’s just they’re willing to drop any sense of moral responsibility if it means getting there is all but guaranteed.
But we did get to the top and it was unnecessarily pissed away by the Glazer siblings and their puppet's incompetence. We have the tools to be at the top, not won every season, but compete at the top but we are being held back.No such thing. It's arrogance to believe United have a god-given right to be a top club.
Struggling to accept the thought of your favourite team being owned by a group of human rights-violating, genocide-committing autocrats is self-righteous?Significant amount of self righteous alarmism as well.
It's so depressing, not only so many people being happy with it but actually basically begging. Yuk.Can not fathom how anyone would think this is OK? How this is better than the Glazers.
Genuinely would be the end for me and a large number of supporters I reckon. Wouldn’t want them anywhere near the country, let alone Manchester.
The Saudis, a great bunch of lads.