Water Melon
Guest
Doubt that the Glazers seriously want to sell yet. Expect them start considering it in a couple of years down the line, when they realize that ESL will never happen, while they can not compete resource-wise with Abu Dhabi.
Yup. I don’t feel proud to say I’ve been pro SA as our owners consistently here.Thought it would be interesting to see how people feel about this in light of the reignition of protests against the Glazers, along with the fact that few others would be in a position to buy the club.
On the one hand, the Glazers are deeply unpopular among the fanbase for obvious reasons and the downside to having money-hungry leeches running a football club has been made clear once again through the latest ESL controversy.
Whereas Saudi-backed owners would put us in a much stronger competitive position as a football club. However, it would mean the club and its reputation being forever tied to a brutal regime. It would also mean seeing our club become part of the oil-money trend in football that has played a big part in deforming the current football landscape and which posters on Redcafe regularly decry.
So where would you stand? Get rid of the Glazers at all costs, even if that means putting up with Saudi-backed owners? Actively welcome lucrative petrostate ownership as the best possible outcome? Or stick with the Glazers until we can find owners less deplorable than either?
but would you rather the Saudis that will give the fans a 50% share in the ownership of the club and invest heavily or would you rather continue with the way it’s run by the Glazers?Do you want your football club to be owned by regimes who are directly involved in murder, human rights abuse etc etc.
or
Do you want your football club to be owned by businessmen who fund politicians/parties that support these regimes, sell weapons to them, or do business deals with these evil regimes and invite these regimes to invest in hundreds of companies in the country.
And then there is a whole thing that we consume many products that are all invested into by these regimes anyways.
So the Saudis will pay 4bn for the club, pay off the debts, then give 50% to the fans, effectively throwing half of that money away and also the veto right they have on using the club in anyway the fans deem unacceptable, then invest some more in transfers/infrastructure? Who exactly do you think they are, magical fairy godmothers?but would you rather the Saudis that will give the fans a 50% share in the ownership of the club and invest heavily or would you rather continue with the way it’s run by the Glazers?
That's a fair question. I have seen many polls here which seem ambiguous enough that you cant answer in a simple Yes/NoWho decides what the right question is though? Would we need a poll to decide?
''Could you accept the Saudi Government/Royal Family owning Manchester United?''
That for me would be a fair enough question to poll.
I don't think that is actually essential though. For example, other day one of the posters listed out everyone who supported ESL, and asked to mock and shame them so to speak.You could also build a reputation system where good predictions about the future (based on polling history) are rewarded more than just repeating / buying into an existing narratives mindlessly.
Because people would not be able to use the feature sensibly. The forums would be poll after poll because some people think polls are interesting when they aren't really all that.I've never understood why polls are so restricted here.
It’s obviously a hypothetical question, I don’t think for 1 minute it will happen, I was just wondering how people’s moral compass would swing with a that scenario.So the Saudis will pay 4bn for the club, pay off the debts, then give 50% to the fans, effectively throwing half of that money away and also the veto right they have on using the club in anyway the fans deem unacceptable, then invest some more in transfers/infrastructure? Who exactly do you think they are, magical fairy godmothers?
And even if they do that, the answer is still no. No matter what the ‘they are all as bad as each other’ crowd might say, there’s a big fecking difference between being owned by greed driven capitalists who grease the palms of politicians who might or might not have sanctioned war/arm sales, and a regime that is right at this very moment actively carrying out a literally fecking genocide in a neighboring country, it’s not really close, and being the sport washing vehicle to rehabilitate the image of those monsters isn’t worth it no matter how many world class players or facilities you may have.
If you don't care about the history or traditions of the club and just want to be a fan of a team that spends obscene money on new players every year, then it is rational to support a prospective Saudi ownership.It’s depressing that anyone here thinks being owned by the Saudis is worth it if it means on-pitch improvement. Get your priorities sorted.
Get the feck out of here with this. The majority can claim a moral high ground, and calling "that human rights statement" silly is fairly shocking. I mean, I get that you feel entitled to supporting a club that wins everything, that much is clear from your general posting, but don't try to fecking whatabout away the awfulness of the Saudi regime.Having Arab owners would make us a powerhouse again, top signings and since they won't be bothered on the financial part it would all be focused on the success on the pitch. Sign me up any day.
I don't think anyone can claim higher ground on moral, that human rights statement is silly to me. Let's say if the British or Spanish crown owned any club would they say the same? I may be touching sensible subjects here but not being born in the UK or Spain I don't have any admiration for the royalty and reviewing history they are pretty much as bad, if not worst, than the Saudis.
I'm English and I'd be just as fecked off at the ridiculous idea of the British monarchy owning United.Having Arab owners would make us a powerhouse again, top signings and since they won't be bothered on the financial part it would all be focused on the success on the pitch. Sign me up any day.
I don't think anyone can claim higher ground on moral, that human rights statement is silly to me. Let's say if the British or Spanish crown owned any club would they say the same? I may be touching sensible subjects here but not being born in the UK or Spain I don't have any admiration for the royalty and reviewing history they are pretty much as bad, if not worst, than the Saudis.
I'm not going to Qatar, sounds like a fecking dog shit World Cup.I am against Saudi buying our club and using it as a vehicle for their propoganda.
But, to play devil's advocate: How many of you will boycott the 2022 World Cup in Qatar due to the well publicized human rights violations for migrant workers building the stadiums?
I think we have a big enough of a fan base that in the event of a potential takeover, there will no discernible loss of revenue from match day attendance or social media following. But then again, there’s no particularly convincing reason to doubt the integrity/moral compass of people opposed to this. It’s just a game at the end of the day. If all everybody ever cared about was success/having the shiniest toys, there wouldn’t have been that much backlash within our own fan base about the ESL.It’s obviously a hypothetical question, I don’t think for 1 minute it will happen, I was just wondering how people’s moral compass would swing with a that scenario.
Some things are considerably worse than your bog standard capitalist business owners.Thought it would be interesting to see how people feel about this in light of the reignition of protests against the Glazers, along with the fact that few others would be in a position to buy the club.
On the one hand, the Glazers are deeply unpopular among the fanbase for obvious reasons and the downside to having money-hungry leeches running a football club has been made clear once again through the latest ESL controversy.
Whereas Saudi-backed owners would put us in a much stronger competitive position as a football club. However, it would mean the club and its reputation being forever tied to a brutal regime. It would also mean seeing our club become part of the oil-money trend in football that has played a big part in deforming the current football landscape and which posters on Redcafe regularly decry.
So where would you stand? Get rid of the Glazers at all costs, even if that means putting up with Saudi-backed owners? Actively welcome lucrative petrostate ownership as the best possible outcome? Or stick with the Glazers until we can find owners less deplorable than either?
City is Abu Dhabi, mateThis whole "buy a club for PR and whitewashing reasons" thing has never made sense to me. I didn't know much about Qatar and their skeletons until awareness raised by them buying City and hosting the World Cup. They need to dispose (not literally, unlike Khashoggi) of whoever advised them that this would be a slam dunk in terms of PR. Who thinks Qatar is ruled by a benevolent liberal family?
I'm guessing you still don't know! (Palm to face)This whole "buy a club for PR and whitewashing reasons" thing has never made sense to me. I didn't know much about Qatar and their skeletons until awareness raised by them buying City and hosting the World Cup. They need to dispose (not literally, unlike Khashoggi) of whoever advised them that this would be a slam dunk in terms of PR. Who thinks Qatar is ruled by a benevolent liberal family?
Roy Keane's pretty tech-savvy with instai heard Spotify owner, a Swedish billionaire, is attempting to buy Arsenal, is there any tech billionaire who can buy Manchester United? Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos?
who the richest British tech billionaire?
FTBMBS can SMB.
City is Abu Dhabi, mate
I'm guessing you still don't know! (Palm to face)
Racist comment. Not very funny at all.
Potato, tomato
Hmm .. maybe. I haven't been around long enough here to know but it's probably worth just allowing by default and restricting if things get annoying. Maybe that's what happened as well.Because people would not be able to use the feature sensibly. The forums would be poll after poll because some people think polls are interesting when they aren't really all that.
I think that's exactly what happened. If you really really really want a poll on something you can always message a mod directly with your request. Most of them are helpful enough.Hmm .. maybe. I haven't been around long enough here to know but it's probably worth just allowing by default and restricting if things get annoying. Maybe that's what happened as well.
I wish everyone would, including all the players. A world cup that was bought with bribery and built with slave labour, being staged in a desert country that hates human rights. What could be better.I am against Saudi buying our club and using it as a vehicle for their propoganda.
But, to play devil's advocate: How many of you will boycott the 2022 World Cup in Qatar due to the well publicized human rights violations for migrant workers building the stadiums?
Looks like they are all related.Is there only one family in Saudi?
He is nowhere near, I mean light years, away from having enough money.So Becks is too poor right?:-(
Saudi Arabia is the scummest of countries and I'd take Glazers million times over them.