The Saudi Takeover Rumor Thread

[Massive Spanner]

There is a difference, that does not change the fact that the problem of the Saudis should have been of a different kind if the Americans and British governments, democratically elected by their own people did not support the Saudis, and those same citizens actually cared enough to do something when those arms deals were signed, and repeated. Fact is, most of those/voters didn't give a feck as they don't care now. Why should they care now?

The key word being government's. Look, maybe the Glazer's voted for certain parties because they like that they bomb the middle east. we don't know. Maybe they like their country supplying arms to these countries. we don't know. It's not a problem of a "different" kind at all. The Saudi royal's are worse in every single way. Much, much worse. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you because it's so blindingly obvious to the naked eye that trying to explain it is pointless.

I think you and other's in here are simply trying to somehow justify them replacing the Glazer's purely to get your shiny new toys.

 

[JPRouve]

There is a difference, that does not change the fact that the problem of the Saudis should have been of a different kind if the Americans and British governments, democratically elected by their own people did not support the Saudis, and those same citizens actually cared enough to do something when those arms deals were signed, and repeated. Fact is, most of those/voters didn't give a feck as they don't care now. Why should they care now?

Who is "they"? We are talking about Manchester United and its association with specific people, United fans generally care about that.

 

[Kostov]

Well, the issue is that for some reason you don't understand that the issue is with the royal family's actions, not the country or its citizens. The club is linked to the royal family not a random Saudi.

I do understand, I just don't give a feck. If new owner come in and structure the club properly like the City/PSG owners I don't care about their way of ruling their own country, since nobody else does anyway.

 

[SirAF]

Yeah but we don't need Saudi's oil money for that to happen, we only need owners who don't bleed the club dry to service our debt. What separates us from the likes of City and PSG is that our income is already so enormous as a club and could easily spend the sort of money they do and build the infrastructure they do without these tyrants taking over.

I don't want them here, we don't need them here. I just want owners who are willing to put the money the club makes back into the club.

There aren’t many of those around. You basically need zillionaire owners that are in it for the prestige and not profit - like City’s owners.

 

[Massive Spanner]

There aren’t many of those around. You basically need zillionaire owners that are in it for the prestige and not profit - like City’s owners.

There are plenty of owner's who will put a lot more of the money the club earns back into it than the Glazer's do.

 

[JPRouve]

I do understand, I just don't give a feck. If new owner come in and structure the club properly like the City/PSG owners I don't care about their way of ruling their own country, since nobody else does anyway.

You see this, that's why the conversation is pointless.

 

[SirAF]

There are plenty of owner's who will put a lot more of the money the club earns back into it than the Glazer's do.

That are also willing to pay around 4bn to acquire the club from the Glazer’s?

 

[Massive Spanner]

That are also willing to pay around 4bn to acquire the club from the Glazer’s?

that I don't know but i'd rather the Glazer's keep the club over these Saudi's, that's for sure.

 

[Kostov]

The key word being government's. Look, maybe the Glazer's voted for certain parties because they like that they bomb the middle east. we don't know. Maybe they like their country supplying arms to these countries. we don't know. It's not a problem of a "different" kind at all. The Saudi royal's are worse in every single way. Much, much worse. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you because it's so blindingly obvious to the naked eye that trying to explain it is pointless.

I think you and other's in here are simply trying to somehow justify them replacing the Glazer's purely to get your shiny new toys.

Just like I said in another post, I don't care if the Saudis are worse in running their own country (helped by the morally correct West, and their business partners like Glazers and others). We don't know about the Glazers involvement in shady staff either, nor do I care, since nobody really does. And it's not about shiny new toys, don't be ridiculous, United can provide it's shiny new toys by itself, the direction where the club is headed in the hands of Glazers is the problem. We are falling behind rapidly because of incompetence, because of the way the club is managed from top to bottom. We need a change, and based on the City/PSG model these middle east owners are shrewd businessmen who now how to handle their assets.

 

[Ban]

Just like I said in another post, I don't care if the Saudis are worse in running their own country (helped by the morally correct West, and their business partners like Glazers and others). We don't know about the Glazers involvement in shady staff either, nor do I care, since nobody really does. And it's not about shiny new toys, don't be ridiculous, United can provide it's shiny new toys by itself, the direction where the club is headed in the hands of Glazers is the problem. We are falling behind rapidly because of incompetence, because of the way the club is managed from top to bottom. We need a change, and based on the City/PSG model these middle east owners are shrewd businessmen who now how to handle their assets.

Shrewd businessmen? They are shrewd all right, like it was proven in recent news about FFP.

 

[JPRouve]

There are plenty of owner's who will put a lot more of the money the club earns back into it than the Glazer's do.

No, there isn't a lot of them because these people didn't become billionaires by being idiots. When you can buy a club for 50m to 200m and put money in it, you don't spend 4Bn to have the right to do it. The only people that will buy this club are people that will try to make a lot of money out of it or people that haven't worked for their money and have an incredible amount of it.

 

[Trizy]

at this point, i'm willing to cut a deal with the devil so United becomes a force again, and stops getting embarrassed

Sadly, this

 

[decorativeed]

I do understand, I just don't give a feck. If new owner come in and structure the club properly like the City/PSG owners I don't care about their way of ruling their own country, since nobody else does anyway.

Clearly, as this thread alone proves, plenty of people do care.

Frankly, if you place the ability to buy a big name player for a lot of cash (something we've not actually had any difficulty doing in recent years) over the possibility that someone can be buried up to the neck and have stones thrown at them until they die because of their beliefs or because they've been raped, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

 

[Kostov]

Who is "they"? We are talking about Manchester United and its association with specific people, United fans generally care about that.

I meant regular voting folkregular football fans don't care about the way Saudis operate and the way the West has helped them operate. Why should that change now.

 

[Patrick08]

Agreed. Most on here don't talk about football as much as the are concerned about how the Saudis regime work!? feck that. Are you happy with Glazers? most are not of course, we want to see Manchester United the most valuable club in football act like that on the fecking football pitch.

For that there are other ways to do it than just using brute money force to buy the likes of Mbappe for 160 m pounds. Proper term is scouting and using a competitive footballing brain in decision making.

Do you really mean to say we couldn't compete with city in the race of targets like Kdb who went for the same price we bought di maria for? Or the likes of Sane and Jesus when we broke world records for teenage players twice? Or even couldn't compete for talents like Mane kante jorginho some strategic signings that play a very important roles on the pitch ?

It was just a matter of priorities and vision of the club and managers in charge and specially the manager who want to play a certain brand of football. Our ceo's meddling had also played some negetive effects in how the club is being perceived by others specially those very talented players which are on the market.

Proactive ness is the current markets need of one has to be successive and this board under Woodward is one of the most reactive lousy board I have ever seen at united just like the managers they hired post Fergie.

And you just have to look at Liverpool to understand the points I mentioned.

Fergie got players like vidic evra ronaldo de gea for damn cheap even when we were playing truckloads for Rooney ferdi, Carrick veron type talents. Even had the likes of pogba playing in our academy itself. There is just too much reactivity in what we do in the market and the top down management is to blame for it not just the money city have spent.

 

[Massive Spanner]

No, there isn't a lot of them because these people didn't become billionaires by being idiots. When you can buy a club for 50m to 200m and put money in it, you don't spend 4Bn to have the right to do it. The only people that will buy this club are people that will try to make a lot of money out of it or people that haven't worked for their money and have an incredible amount of it.

Not arguing with you on that JP. I agree, I think if this club were to be sold it would only be to billionaire, oil rich owners. It's a sad truth but we're worth too much and too profitable for the Glazer's for anything else to realistically happen. But if it's a choice between keeping the Glazer's and having lower budgets vs getting the Saudi's and having City-esque budgets I would take the former, all day every day.

 

[Trizy]

I love all the comments of people against this saying they'd rather support another team or rather see us relegated to the lower league than be taken over. No you wouldn't, you big drama queens .

I'm for the deal for what it's worth. America is built on corruption and we're owned by Americans. Hell, England has a history of being one of the worst countries in the world. Sealing resources from less advanced countries, enslaving entire populations and killing millions more. Judging by your moral high ground, you probably didn't know the above? Now that you do are you gonna become French and leave the country?


Here's 5 examples for you proud English supporting United fans trying to take the moral high ground.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

 

[Massive Spanner]

Just like I said in another post, I don't care if the Saudis are worse in running their own country (helped by the morally correct West, and their business partners like Glazers and others). We don't know about the Glazers involvement in shady staff either, nor do I care, since nobody really does. And it's not about shiny new toys, don't be ridiculous, United can provide it's shiny new toys by itself, the direction where the club is headed in the hands of Glazers is the problem. We are falling behind rapidly because of incompetence, because of the way the club is managed from top to bottom. We need a change, and based on the City/PSG model these middle east owners are shrewd businessmen who now how to handle their assets.

well, there's the difference, I do care.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

I have supported United since 1996. If this happens then I will stop watching United. No way am I supporting a club that is ran by that lot.

 

[SirAF]

I have supported United since 1996. If this happens then I will stop watching United. No way am I supporting a club that is ran by that lot.

No, you won’t.

 

[Siorac]

I don't get it. It's as if people don't realize that we are talking about literal offenders of human rights and war criminals. Not people loosely associated with it but the ones giving the orders, the absolute rulers. But apparently there are things more important in life than actual life, probably things like signing Neymar.

We're talking about a country where public beheadings and crucifixions are still a thing!

It's a little bit sad that our fans are so desperate for success that they are trying to justify this with all manner of excuses. As if money were the only issue, as if we were some paupers. Only three clubs - PSG, Manchester City, Barcelona - spent more than United since Fergie's retirement. If we're talking net spend - and YES, it is relevant when we are discussing the owners' willingness to invest into the club, for obvious reasons - then we are second behind City.

But sure, some blood money will solve everything wrong with the club.

 

[Smores]

at this point, i'm willing to cut a deal with the devil so United becomes a force again, and stops getting embarrassed

This couldn't sound more like a glory supporter

I find this embarrassment angle wierd. Did you only support United so you could boast about their success or something?

 

[villain]

Is this actually a thing, or is this basically gossip?

 

[SirAF]

Is this actually a thing, or is this basically gossip?

Basically gossip, at the moment.

 

[Kostur]

If you respect the rules, United won't get more than an extra 30m to 50m. For me that's not worth it.

This is the thing for me too, putting aside the shitty debate of who's worse, it's not like we're operating on some tight shitty budget being able to afford Primark players, we're within the very top of the money we can spend and definitely wages we pay. If we are to abide the FFP or any other rules that restrain spending and all that shit, it's not much of an upgrade we'll be getting anyway. Now, if we're to walk around the rules then obviously we've got close to infinite pool of money to splash but question is probably not if but when somebody will finally get to the ass of City and PSG in regards to their shady dealings. We'd probably face the same fate with even more scrutiny given our stature.

You feckers are already complaining about every single article that, meaningless or not, pictures us negatively. Imagine the amount of shit that would pour on us, the media would be waiting for anything remotely suspicious about us (proven or not, doesn't matter) to start a shit smearing campaign.

 

[Siorac]

I love all the comments of people against this saying they'd rather support another team or rather see us relegated to the lower league than be taken over. No you wouldn't, you big drama queens .

I'm for the deal for what it's worth. America is built on corruption and we're owned by Americans. Hell, England has a history of being one of the worst countries in the world. Sealing resources from less advanced countries, enslaving entire populations and killing millions more. Judging by your moral high ground, you probably didn't know the above? Now that you do are you gonna become French and leave the country?


Here's 5 examples for you proud English supporting United fans trying to take the moral high ground.

What the feck are you on about, seriously? We're not talking about some past crimes, we're talking about public stonings, beheadings and crucifixions happening in 2018. We're talking about a country whose agents kidnapped, tortured and murdered a journalist who entered the country's consulate.

Yes, humans did terrible things in the past so that means that we should not care about anything ever now? Amnesty International are based in London, should they just shut the feck up because the British Empire was a terrible, cruel institution?

 

[Striker10]

To compete the club needs to be taken over. The game as it was died a long time ago and we've edged and edge loser to more and more stuff that should annoy people because it's no longer just sport. How do people feel in Spain supporting any club but Barcelona and Madrid, having to compete when they get so much money and the others don't. How do City fans feel being allowed to cheat? And PSG? They don't care. This is the world we've moved into. Don't worship these players. All they do is kick a ball and not all of them are any good and many get too much money. The average fans, just wants to see good football.

They want to see youth promoted if they're good enough - not to sell but to breath life and create hope for the future. I don't know if it's true, but these mega rich clubs and their owners have pushed the game over the edge. We can be proud of our history but the game isn't what it once was and there is no indication we would spend (if it ever happened), like certain clubs. It would depend on our own internal attitiude to what we have and what we have coming through. The politics and the sport are seperate. As a club, at least we can say that we make our own avenue but has it gotten to the stage where greed has made it incredibly difficult in the market? Perhaps so.

The severity of crimes committed etc etc- gets into politics and their POV is understandable as is the notion that some would stop supporting or watching etc...its a sad state of affairs but these owners have ruined the sport.

 

[Trizy]

What the feck are you on about, seriously? We're not talking about some past crimes, we're talking about public stonings, beheadings and crucifixions happening in 2018. We're talking about a country whose agents kidnapped, tortured and murdered a journalist who entered the country's consulate.

Yes, humans did terrible things in the past so that means that we should not care about anything ever now? Amnesty International are based in London, should they just shut the feck up because the British Empire was a terrible, cruel institution?

I'm not defending the Saudi's, they're backwards as feck. It's just the moral high ground as if they're the only country in History to be cruel is what I don't get.

 

[Siorac]

Not arguing with you on that JP. I agree, I think if this club were to be sold it would only be to billionaire, oil rich owners. It's a sad truth but we're worth too much and too profitable for the Glazer's for anything else to realistically happen. But if it's a choice between keeping the Glazer's and having lower budgets vs getting the Saudi's and having City-esque budgets I would take the former, all day every day.

But that's the thing, we already pretty much have Cityesque budgets. Since Ferguson's retirement, we spent £805.12m, they spent £913.31m - yeah, it's more but that 100m doesn't exactly account for the vast contrast in the two clubs' performances during these seasons.

 

[Kostov]

You see this, that's why the conversation is pointless.

Maybe it is. Maybe I'm just honest enough to say it, while others pretend they care while they go on with their regular everyday life. I see you are from France, I don't want to offend you either way since I feel you are reasonable poster on here, I just want to ask, what have you done in relations of your government policy towards the Saudis? I see France is the third biggest seller of arms to the Saudis after UK and US. Or what does the regular French voter do to protest that?

 

[LoveFootball]

Yeah but we don't need Saudi's oil money for that to happen, we only need owners who don't bleed the club dry to service our debt. What separates us from the likes of City and PSG is that our income is already so enormous as a club and could easily spend the sort of money they do and build the infrastructure they do without these tyrants taking over.

I don't want them here, we don't need them here. I just want owners who are willing to put the money the club makes back into the club.

You don't want them? ok, it's your opinion but I think 90% of the 600M global fans would gladly welcome them. Most fans do care about success and are worry about the rise of Manchester City and PSG, and they think it'd do us more good than harm. History will not really care about how City got their money, history will only remember trophies they won and contemplate what a major club they've become; same will happen if Saudis do buy another PL club. Do you think most fans care about how our previous owners got United? do you think the average fan from kuala lumpur or from Mozambique will care about the morale side of this? What matters for fans, and for future generation of fans is how the club is performing and how many trophies the club win.

As I said, if you care about morale, don't buy smartphones, don't buy computers, don't put fuel in your car; those thing come with a lot of blood.

 

[EwanI Ted]

As I said, if you care about morale, don't buy smartphones, don't buy computers, don't put fuel in your car; those thing come with a lot of blood.

Life neccesitates difficult compromises. That doesnt mean we should actively welcome yet another.

 

[Un4givableB]

No, you won’t.

Maybe during the preseason tour he won't.

 

[Kostov]

Clearly, as this thread alone proves, plenty of people do care.

Frankly, if you place the ability to buy a big name player for a lot of cash (something we've not actually had any difficulty doing in recent years) over the possibility that someone can be buried up to the neck and have stones thrown at them until they die because of their beliefs or because they've been raped, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

Why don't you try and read other posts in the same discussion before you go on and spout bullshit. Our Glazers ownership struggles are not because of our ability to buy new players, the problem is deeper and the club is falling behind rapidly. If the Saudis are anything as good owners as the City/PSG ones, it would be best for the club I love. What they do and how they operate, is a well known fact and your own government helps them, while you go on with your regular life. What have you actually done to change that apart from defending your moral high ground on internet forums?

 

[Speedicut75]

I'm not defending the Saudi's, they're backwards as feck. It's just the moral high ground as if they're the only country in History to be cruel is what I don't get.

Especially as the weapons used to commit numerous atrocities have been supplied to the Saudis by British companies, working without tactical oversight, on contracts organised by our very own Ministry Of Defence.

 

[Siorac]

I'm not defending the Saudi's, they're backwards as feck. It's just the moral high ground as if they're the only country in History to be cruel is what I don't get.

Nobody says they are the only country in history to be cruel. I don't want any other oppressive, dictatorial regime's ruling family to own United. I don't want the Workers' Party of Korea owning United either or the fecking Myanmar government.

Yes, yes, capitalism makes us all complicit in their crimes, you don't have to rehash the 'but you use a smartphone' argument. But I'd still rather not have my favourite team representing a regime - and it would do that since in this hypothetical scenario we're talking about the actual royal family, not some businessman who just happens to be Saudi - where public beheadings are still a thing. It's not a necessity of taking part in modern society, the way clothes and internet access is. I don't have to support a football club, not to mention that football club does not need the money either.

 

[Kostov]

Shrewd businessmen? They are shrewd all right, like it was proven in recent news about FFP.

Well City are sitting top of the table while all we can shout is FFP from the shambles our club is in. They are a very good run organization either way, with proper footballing structure is what I meant. Surely we can admit that.

 

[decorativeed]

What the feck are you on about, seriously? We're not talking about some past crimes, we're talking about public stonings, beheadings and crucifixions happening in 2018. We're talking about a country whose agents kidnapped, tortured and murdered a journalist who entered the country's consulate.

Yes, humans did terrible things in the past so that means that we should not care about anything ever now? Amnesty International are based in London, should they just shut the feck up because the British Empire was a terrible, cruel institution?

Applause.

 

[Abdullah7]

I’d welcome a new ownership on the basis that they structure the club in a proper way, similar to City and PSG. Whether these new potential Saudis owners would have the same operational and business sense I'm not sure.


How does that work? Isn't their government chosen in elections by Americans? I though that's the way they operate for a long time, as long as they wage war along the globe.

MBS has already done that in the Saudi league.

He restructured every team in the best possible way to revamp the league. He brought back legend figures to each of those clubs to administrate any development closely. He's payed every debt that was lingering those clubs from going forward. In top of that he invested in them and urged them to try getting the best with no remorse about money.

He's here to compete.

 

[Massive Spanner]

But that's the thing, we already pretty much have Cityesque budgets. Since Ferguson's retirement, we spent £805.12m, they spent £913.31m - yeah, it's more but that 100m doesn't exactly account for the vast contrast in the two clubs' performances during these seasons.

Christ, that's a depressing stat.

Still, there's also a massive difference in the way the clubs have been run too. Look at the amount City have spent on their infrastructure, facilities, youth academy, scouting network etc. We've spent bugger all on them in that period which reflects our transfers pretty well, I reckon.