No Ill rather endure 100 years of Glazer ownership than a Saudi state takeover.
Would you be happy to see the Glazers sell to Saudi Arabia-backed owners?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
- Status
The very obvious error aside, I’m kinda surprised you haven’t noticed the amount of City fans who have defended Mansour online since the takeover (ranging from the usual whataboutism to straight up adulation ‘he’s a very good owner’, ‘cares about the club’, ‘what they did to local community). It is therefore quite fair to assume that United with its global fan base and reach will have a fair share of fans who are of similar disposition, and by extension their family/associates.
Someone similar to Mark Cuban tbh, a la an owner who already made his fortune and buys a club/team to take a vested interest in the competitive success of the club, not just as an investment.
The main reason many hate the Glazers is that they’ve pretty much shown they could care less how good the squad is as long as it’s in a great position to generate the required revenue (UCL spot, commercial sponsorships, big social media presence and signings etc.).
Getting money from the Saudi Royal is not much different from getting money from participating in the Super League. It would taste just as bad.
Last edited:
If the Saudis bought us and sold the naming rights to the stadium do we think if we all rushed into our Green and Gold frocks we could bring down a foreign government?
Can't we have a third option added of other (Musk/Bezos/Ratcliffe etc)
Anyone who buys is likely to be very rich and look at match day revenue with different eyes..
Broadcast from Mars anyone?
Wait, I know Gary Neville said something about attempted murder but how many journalists did the super league actually kill, dismember and dissolve in acid?
And how many yemenis did the ESL killed?
Minus the genocide
Super League or a briefly soured journalist? Hm, that´s a tough one. Can I pick the journalist?
Yeah but it hasn't shifted the line on who these regimes actually are, is my point. No one important has gone, "oh wow they own City, they're awesome now"
A few City fans think Mansour is awesome. That does not constitute whitewashing.
Last edited:
Nobody likes the Glazers, but you simply cannot compare a moneygrubbing family of business people like them, with a murderous regime that oppresses women & homosexuals, chops up journalists and commits acts of genocide against its neighbours.
The Saudis are as bad as it gets. You choose the Glazers, every time, not because you like them, but because unless you are a moral monster you have to
The Saudis are as bad as it gets. You choose the Glazers, every time, not because you like them, but because unless you are a moral monster you have to
No.
To be fair the case against the Glazers would be that on top of being themselves, they sold United to MBS.
Why would you want Musk or Bezos?
Yes they have, in the UK especially.
As bad as the Glazers are there is still scope to be owned by significantly worse people. The Saudis being some of the worst.
theyve never invested a penny of their own money in the club
I agree, the times are important. But then again does them owning City and PSG has changed anything?
Do anyone think better of them because they own those clubs? I don't think there's anything they can do besides actually changing their laws to wash their image. So I don't know how they owning ManUtd would support that regimen or whatever.
No chance, I hate the Glazers but Saudi are another level of disgust,
Can we have a neither option?
When we win the quintuple a starship (or rather a dick shaped rocket) will land on the center of the pitch.
Better than the current situation and not human rights issues like the Saudis
Who?
How has their purchase influenced UK foreign policy towards the Middle East?
The bad news would be that the Glazer family (i.e. Ed Grazer) raised funds for Trumps campaign, and when Salman had Khashoggi killed, Trump - according to himself - "saved his ass".
It´s a small world.
My two cents is that its just amazing how people will shake fists about saudi ownership over human rights but buy nike t shirts who just lobbied against a bill in america which would have stopped them importing goods made with child labour.
People take the pr distractions they provide hook line and sinker, lauding them for posting pictures of black sports stars they sponsor in support of BLM whilst in the same week lobbying for the continuance of slavery happening right now.
People shop at primark who use child labour and adults working for 8 pence a day in india and bangladesh.
people will use tax dodging starbucks.
people will not raise much issue about warehouse conditions and keep shopping with amazon and sports direct.
people will use nestle products whos water bottling has caused multiple global droughts in some of the poorest areas of the globe.
i’d take saudi ownership over the glazers any day of the week, but dont really want it as it ruins the game and makes it uncompetitive. But just find it funny how people only apply ethics to certain scenarios rather than across the board. Smacks more of rhetoric than any sort of moral decision
People take the pr distractions they provide hook line and sinker, lauding them for posting pictures of black sports stars they sponsor in support of BLM whilst in the same week lobbying for the continuance of slavery happening right now.
People shop at primark who use child labour and adults working for 8 pence a day in india and bangladesh.
people will use tax dodging starbucks.
people will not raise much issue about warehouse conditions and keep shopping with amazon and sports direct.
people will use nestle products whos water bottling has caused multiple global droughts in some of the poorest areas of the globe.
i’d take saudi ownership over the glazers any day of the week, but dont really want it as it ruins the game and makes it uncompetitive. But just find it funny how people only apply ethics to certain scenarios rather than across the board. Smacks more of rhetoric than any sort of moral decision
If you voted Saudi here, I reckon you're probably not one of the groups of people who are oppressed, persecuted, tortured or murdered in Saudi Arabia.
neither are the people who voted glazer. Odd point
I am buddy. So are any homosexuals, women, practicing devotees of a religion other than Islam, political dissidents, journalists... and the list goes on.
theres a gif of an alan partridge shrug somewhere
A very strong counter argument. I'll leave you to your irony and strawmen about the ethics of Nestle bottled water, enjoy yourself.
dont give a toss about any of it. Just pointed it out because i Just think its odd that anyone does. Sorry i dont care about your wokeness
I’d stop watching United if Saudis bought us.
No. I'd rather we went bankrupt and re-startrd in the 8th division.
I dislike the glazers as much as anyone for all the money they've taken out of the club, and wish they'd piss off, but they're businessmen, not all the reprehensible politics the Saudis represent.
I dislike the glazers as much as anyone for all the money they've taken out of the club, and wish they'd piss off, but they're businessmen, not all the reprehensible politics the Saudis represent.
Your post is summed up by one word - whataboutism. Just because there's things worse or equally bad it doesn't make someone a hypocrite for speaking out against something.
So if someone doesn't wear Nike, shop at Primark, drinks Costa coffee and doesn't get their flip flops at sports direct then they can have an opinion on Saudi ownership then yes?
Was there anything approaching a coherent point anywhere in that post?
Or is this just the usual bad shit happens in the world everywhere, you all don't care about that so you're all hypocrites for some reason that i can't explain. So something, something, something, bla, bla, grrrr?
I still can't get my head over allowing Politically Exposed Persons to take over football clubs.
The game was corrupt enough through big business prerogatives, adding politics into the mix just doubles-down on the sport heading the wrong way.
The game was corrupt enough through big business prerogatives, adding politics into the mix just doubles-down on the sport heading the wrong way.
How do we know this? From every report I've read it's the Saudi Public Investment Fund that would buy United, not the royal family itself? It seems to me the Saudi PIF is very much in the business of making money, and definitely not 'wont be bothered on the financial part'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Investment_Fund
https://english.alarabiya.net/busin...owing-sovereign-wealth-fund-globally-Governor
Why is no one talking about the Norwegian Fund? It's almost 4 times as big as the Saudi's valued at ~1.2 trillion. Could easily afford United. Give Ole a lifetime contract.
And we're not murdering journalists.
https://www.nbim.no/
And we're not murdering journalists.
https://www.nbim.no/
- Status