You’re talking about a set of supporters and club who released a DVD following a meaningless league win against us. They’re incredibly small time and desperate, so no surprise that some would welcome the Saudis with open arms.
Would you be happy to see the Glazers sell to Saudi Arabia-backed owners?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
As expected some truly terrible takes in here.
United are second in the league and have remained around the top of english and european football during a period that many see as catastrophic. Newcastle are a bottom PL team.
It's mind boggling how you and 1/3 of our fans would prefer to be owned by an actual tyranny over some profitdriven businessmen. Beheading, stoning, flogging, death by burning, cutting off hands, torture, no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of sexuality, non-equal rights for men and women, no elections, on top of the list of badguys when it comes to human rights, Yemen.... etc.
Is that really the better long term bet?
It’s somewhat true though, just because a comic makes it funny doesn’t remove its relevance.
I mean what’s the cut-off point?
We buy branded goods from sweatshops and we fuel our vehicles with oil from the Middle East.
Would choose to not shop in one of the Glazers shopping malls in the States? (Well one of the few that are open.)
Saudi’s owning United changes nothing, neither positively or negatively.
If pushed I only see a positive with strengthening their ties to the west. Education through integration
They have been in the football doldrums for a long time and are desperate for success. They know that they will never be able to compete with the "big six" while Ashley is still the owner.
Also, they weren't all supportive of it.
Yes. Yes it is definitely the better long term bet.
Owning United won’t worsen those issues, if anything only put pressure and a spotlight on them to improve them.
Oh yes just like Hitler improved after hosting the 1936 Olympics!
It's for an other thread but that sentence is wrong on so many level. If you say that out loud it's impossible to not cringe.It’s somewhat true though, just because a comic makes it funny doesn’t remove its relevance.
I mean what’s the cut-off point?
We buy branded goods from sweatshops and we fuel our vehicles with oil from the Middle East.
Would choose to not shop in one of the Glazers shopping malls in the States? (Well one of the few that are open.)
Saudi’s owning United changes nothing, neither positively or negatively.
If pushed I only see a positive with strengthening their ties to the west. Education through integration
What a choice we have.
A very well reasoned and accurate post.
Without their oil and gas, they would be nothing.
And hopefully soon, they will loose and big part of their income as we move away from fossil fuels.
Maybe not the current one.
Everyone has their own cut off point. But if everyone said feck it I can't be arsed taking a stand against every evil and injustice in the world so I won't bother speaking out against any. Then nothing would ever change for the better because no one would even try. Would they?It’s somewhat true though, just because a comic makes it funny doesn’t remove its relevance.
I mean what’s the cut-off point?
We buy branded goods from sweatshops and we fuel our vehicles with oil from the Middle East.
Would choose to not shop in one of the Glazers shopping malls in the States? (Well one of the few that are open.)
Saudi’s owning United changes nothing, neither positively or negatively.
If pushed I only see a positive with strengthening their ties to the west. Education through integration
As for the Saudi Royals changing their ways because they owned United.
Come on mate.No it wouldn't. It would move the focus away from those issues.
How would them spending billions on sports in Europe while keeping the absolute power over 33 million people possibly help the Saudi people or the Yemenites?
It would be a 100% sportswashing project for them.
First civilize your own country, share the power and resources with your people, give the people freedom of speach, religion, sexuality and equal rights as the bare minumum, before you invest billions in football clubs in Europe.
What is wrong with people?
Are any of the dead historical ones considering putting a bid in for United?
If Saudi do end up buying United then what will happen to our women team?
It’s basically the difference of going out with two horrible people. However one will treat you incredibly and the other treating you like shit.
I voted Saudis because I want us to be loved.
I voted Saudis because I want us to be loved.
Oh ok ok, its only if the current face of the organization is bad. I mean maybe we can get Gadafi's grandson or something since the bad things weren't made by him. I get your logic nice one.
Yes, fully ethical consumption is basically impossible in global capitalism.It’s somewhat true though, just because a comic makes it funny doesn’t remove its relevance.
I mean what’s the cut-off point?
We buy branded goods from sweatshops and we fuel our vehicles with oil from the Middle East.
Would choose to not shop in one of the Glazers shopping malls in the States? (Well one of the few that are open.)
Saudi’s owning United changes nothing, neither positively or negatively.
If pushed I only see a positive with strengthening their ties to the west. Education through integration
But I need to participate in society and I don't need to participate in football. It's easy to say no to football, much harder to say no to owning a phone or ever using a vehicle that runs on oil imported from some murderous dictatorships. Saying no to football clubs used for whitewashing murderous regimes is within my power.
There's also the question of degree and scale. Stealing a few thousand from an old lady is morally wrong, and so is shooting a baby in the face - but most people would agree that these acts vastly differ in their degree of immorality. Similarly, in my opinion, exploiting underpaid sweatshop workers, while still unethical, is a far lesser evil than public beheadings.
You cannot stand up against every instance of injustice, unfairness, or exploitation. True. But that doesn't mean that the only 'internally consistent' attitude is to not give a feck about anything at all.
Most of these sort of comical reposts are totally disingenuous. If you have such high moral standards which you wish to impose on society, you should at least practise what you preach. You choose to buy Apple products, you choose to buy an antique car without a seatbelt. In this example, the only one with a leg to stand on is the poor bugger on the lowest rung of the societal ladder who struggles to live day-to-day. If it's too much of an effort to change your lifestyle, perhaps your convictions weren't that strong to begin with, and perhaps you just like the idea of being more moral more than actually following through?
No, if really have to choose one, I'd rather go with Glazer, although its shite.
did you mean "used"?
....it's just that in this case, the one treating you incredibly would be a murdering tyrant born with absolute power over 33 million Saudis and the one treating you like shit would just be an asshole.....
Still don't get the difference? No?
"He buys me nice things"
See my reply to RUCK4444 above.
Saudi Arabia does shitty things no doubt about it but America, who basically created them, are still in bed with them to this day take the absolute biscuit when it comes to bringing suffering to the world and on its own people and calling it ‘freedom’ it’s genius optics really. Let the people think they are free to do whatever they want while we sell them out. Basically two sides of the same coin. We just hear the pro American PR version here. They both represent the exact same thing. Money and power over the common man and death or oppression to anyone who gets in their way. American owners = Saudi owners at this stage.
I still voted glazer. Better the devil you know I suppose...
I still voted glazer. Better the devil you know I suppose...
Last edited:
You can't blame Gadafi's grandson for things Gadafi did, that is not very fair.
I can't speak for the veracity of this claim, but the situations are markedly different. United haven't dropped lower than 7th since the Glazer's took over, and have only missed out on CL football three times, and all of that has a lot to do with the struggles to adjust post-Fergie. Newcastle have been relegated twice in that time, and have only finished in the top half of the league four times since then (5th, 7th, and 10th twice).
If their fans aren't arsed about a Saudi takeover, it's because they're looking at what has happened to City and have decided they'd rather that than be a nothing team constantly in relegation trouble.
Of course not. The chances of them agreeing to that are definitely zero.
Missed my point i believe. I dont give a toss about the saudis or any of the rest of it. Just find it funny how people will jump on a rhetoric then claim its a product of some sort of moral conscience when it blatantly isnt.
I will openly say I dont care about looking ‘morally righteous’ and dont care what the saudis do - dont condone it but i cant be bothered to worry about things i cant control so couldnt give a toss.
So in the context of this poll and scenarios Would marginally prefer them to the glazers , might make us more competitive. Cant see us doing much more than we currently are while pep and unlimited money are parked across town.
Am largely against state ownership purely because it makes the game less fun, less competitive, less surprising. Did city fans care that much lifting the cup for the fourth time in a row? Then again if you cant beat them join them. Most of the 90s and early thousands was a two and at times one horse race between us and arsenal. Its not like the almighty premier league has always been as open.
Also the hippy sandal wearing lefties might accuse many on here of a load of bollocks called ‘cultural relativism’. But i dont particularly care about that either.
I agree, but does the money gets clean once they inherited it?
I mean could anyone that Inherited money/power from an inmoral regimen can take the moral high ground?
I agree that there is an element of degree/scale to it, but I was specifically referring the comic. There are certainly ways round those 2 particular examples so it's not the best reference for 'the impracticalities of being 100% moral'. Either way, getting back to the question, I don't think we should sell to the Saudi RF. If we're going for a RF, let's go with our own
Imagine that, we're one 1-0 down to Crystal Palace next season, Rashford looks up and sees the Queen encouraging him with a royal wave. Inspired, he goes on to score a hat-trick...regal inspiration on repeat till the end of the season. Basically, we're winning the league and all the players will be knighted. Oh and it's 51% fan-owned. Sorted.Although if you posted something or protested against the American President in America nothing would happen to you but if you protest against the Saudi Regime you are executed even when you are younger than 18.
Yes America is far from perfect but there is a huge fundamental difference between the two systems.
Lets use some logic on the one:
All Saudi Royals are tyrants
Some american investors are supporting Saudi tyrants
Can you really justify a = between the two?
Still no.
Well one would hope that they would use the money / power to make amends and make things right or better.
I'm more from the idea that they shouldn't inherit the money/power in the first place. But if saying buying a football club counts as some sort of amend I think we'll disagree.
If America was in any way genuine about their moral crusade in the Muslim world they’d have removed the Saudi royals and imposed sanctions and put someone much less hardline in there. America let them thrive and take over the region because they are partners. America is as responsible as anyone else for allowing Saudi power to grow but the next thing you know America are still forcing their way into other more progressive counties in the name of freedom. Why is that? It’s hypocrisy turned up to 11. You can chose to ignore it if you want but they are almost as complicit as the Saudi Royals for what’s going on there at this stage. America aren’t the great savours of the world. It’s all just a crude money and power grab at the end of the day.
it’s not “some investors” it’s the president and the whole political system. Saudi owns a big stake in America and vice versa. They are in cahoots.
- Status