Wow, even on the internet this post stands out as notably moronic
Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
It’s all right lads, they’re just going to not post, wait for this thread to go on for a few more hours ages, then post how people are hypocrites for being against state ownership when the UK sells bombs to Saudi Arabia.
Yep, no issues at all. Bring them on. The sooner the better.
By the way, should there be a poll on this in the thread? Hard to capture the general consensus without one.
I think most of the government was pro remain but never mind.
He's been doing it since the thread started last week and never once has deigned to elaborate on his nonsense
Absolute bottom of the barrel posts
Really? Odd way to behave if so.
My point was towards people moaning about how the oil state ownership would be bad because of all the human rights violations and how they are not watching the World Cup because Qatar is so evil etc. You can find some such posts in the first page of this thread. So, yea it did seem pretty rich coming from us. Had to point out that hypocritical comparisons are not what you must be making while listing down points about why you don't want the oil-rich states as your owners. Make better points. Like how unlimited money will destroy the league, etc.
So, yea, context bruh.
My my, Sherlock has suspicions.
Point was to show that no matter who buys us, there will always be something we can find about them that we don't agree with. Behind every fortune lies a crime and no state is holier than the other, so make legitimate pros and cons about the different potential owners but don't just portray one party, namely the oil rich states, to be the devil's incarnate and a blot on humanity as a whole. No one wants state ownership but make practical points about why you wouldn't like that, and not on humanitarian grounds, 'cos at the end of the day, even Apple uses child-slave labor to make those pretty gadgets that people go ga-ga over.
Your context doesn't help you. It's still whataboutery and irrelevant to the discussion about the potential buyers of man utd for all of the reasons everyone who has replied to has pointed out... bruh
The idea that all bad things are equally bad and so you shouldn't have moral breakpoints about what you're willing to tolerate is a fallacy.
You also end your argument with this, which is never a good look.
Just say you want United to have an unlimited pocket and buy the best players in the world to compete with City, no matter if it comes from El Chapo.
No need to mention the UN, UK,America, mine companies, Gaza, etc
I honestly have no problem with this, because it effectively doesn’t accomplish what people accuse them of trying to accomplish with it.
Now… if it gets to the point the players have to show up at a palace to kneel and kiss a ring … I wouldn’t want to play for that team.
But “sportswashing” doesn’t work. Qatar got the World Cup; it only made people notice their faults MORE, not less.
Bin Salman’s group bought Newcastle - a majority of his people still aren’t allowed inside the US and are subject to scrutiny to their human rights abuses.
And those issues are not solvable by withholding sport ownership. To get their attention you have to withhold fighter jets, threaten to change the terms of defense agreements, etc. This is something they do for status and fun. But it only gives them status in their own mInds.
When Bob Baffert brings an exceptional new horse to the Derby, I give little thought to the fact that a sheik somewhere wrote the check for him. I just really don’t care.
Now, where the line gets blurred too much is when you have entities that are literally part of a sovereign regime owning something. Being able to print money and play a part in controlling the actual value of money overall … that should preclude you.
This wouldn’t happen, but what if, for PR reasons, The United States wanted to buy a team? They could manipulate subsidy programs, bond markets, banking etc to the point that they could threaten all of La Liga if Real didn’t back off on a player. This is obviously hyperbole, but it’s hyperbole to prove a point: a state has powers at its disposal well beyond just make money that can allow them to manipulate entire leagues. PSG and City have already done it to an extent with national travel industry partners, fake corporate fronts…
BUT … if you aren’t going to stop state associated entities from owning teams, can you blame fans of their team from wanting to be one of them? If United has a structure like City’s five years from now, United can consistently pick any player in the world at any time, and the team isn’t just dominant… but FUN to watch… will you care? It’s not for United fans to stop foreign investment entities. That is the FA’s job, and the FA should take the burden of any backlash.
The average fan has enough issues of their own to deal with. They just want to show up on a special day, maybe with their kid, buy a jersey, watch a match, and enjoy something. Putting the burden of where the initial money came from on them is unfair.
Sports washing is less about becoming popular with football fans and more about inserting an entity into multiple levels of a societal framework. Qatar don’t need the average man on the street in the UK to like them, they’re more interested in further embedding themselves in the economic and political landscape, collecting politicians and media figures in their pocket as they go.
I think that's broadly true, at least in terms of the average man on the street who doesn't have a lot of money.
Sportswashing is all about these states' broader strategies and worries about a post-fossil fuel future. They are all betting on making a transition to an economy that is heavily dependent on tourism, foreign investment, real estate speculation, and becoming hubs for global business. Their major problem in this regard is that their societies run on a set of values completely at odds with the values of many of the countries from which they hope to attract the tourists, investment, real estate bets, etc. So they hope that buying football clubs, hosting the World Cup, or starting a golf tour they can help them square that circle and integrate economically with the West while maintaining values completely at odds with the West.
Hopefully the whole project fails miserably and these regimes all fall apart once the oil runs out or the world stops buying.
While I would agree in part with this, “sportswashing” is definitely supposed to be about public sentiment and PR. All the things you listed as things they want are true, but they have much more efficient and effective avenues for achieving those goals than sports ownership.
The people who don't really give a crap and don't vote aren't ever represented and those opposed are very active in actually bothering to vote, so we don't really get a genuine consensus. I have issues with it, but the reality is United have always been the only team close to my heart, that will never change and I shall continue to support them. A certain amount people on the forum are saying they'll stop supporting the team, a hell of a lot more just want owners who invest in the team. I'd say all fans would love the club to be owned by the fans, but it simply won't happen and any new owners will be unwelcome by sectors of our fan base as it's so big.
Yeah, I get what you mean.
You're correct, though. I don't believe there is anyone perfect model for the club. I personally wouldn't want to see fans own the club. I just wouldn't like the politics of it all.
I meant after the referendum. If they believed in remain then such a marginal result should have been set aside. Politicians should do what is right.
This thread is largely a train wreck at this point, but it is probably worth pointing out at this juncture that most (all?) of the people opposed to state ownership of United, would equally be opposed whether that state is Saudi Arabia or whether it was the USA, UK, China, Russia, or India.
Nation states owning football clubs is simply ludicrous and although there are clear (financial) rewards for the individual club in question, this model is detrimental to the game as a whole.
Complete nonsense. City are the most metaphorically "dead" club you could find. Us having an unlimited supply of petro dollars doesn't change that, quite the opposite. We would become what we've decried City for for years, with an added dollop of hypocrisy on the side. We don't need that kind of ethical and sporting bankruptcy to make us competitive, we just need to clear our debt and be provided with the resources and organisation to keep our infrastructure inline with the best of the best.
Wanting to be funded by a a state with deep pockets is basically just the embracing of the idea that football fans are just glory hunters? It negates the identity, history and heritage and culture of the club and the sport in general. The last quarter of a century has been going this way and this is the logical conclusion of clubs like United embracing the commercial and marketing side of the sport. This has sadly been coming and it's looking like we are past the tipping point.
"Why is X such a great club?" = They just happened to go up for sale at the right time.
"Why is X such a great club?" = They just happened to go up for sale at the right time.
You're the one talking nonsense mate. Those said owners wouldn't have to pile their money in ala City as we make enough cash ourselves to sustain a good playing squad.
Personally no. It's not only the political issues, I'm someone who believes football clubs should be capable of being self-sufficient, not reliant on their owners to pump money into the club every year in order for the to stay solvent.
The club would be self sufficient under either a Middle Eastern ownership, or any other type of ownership. We have already been.
The current issue is that we've been hamstrung by the current owners due to the debt they put on us, and the consistent payments they've taken out of the club.
Going off topic but…they had to honour the referendum really. In hindsight they should have set a higher bar for changing the status quo, e.g. at least a 60% vote to leave, but they didn’t. Also, tactically, the Conservatives realised that a lot of the key seats they needed to win (e.g. the former “Red Wall”) were pro Brexit, so played on that.
Nothing groundbreaking
But I was re-reading the UWS fanzine from September (maybe a month either side) today which stated that the Dubai Royal Family were in talks with the Glazers to buy the club earlier this year, but talks stopped
If true, presumably that's one to watch now that the Glazers have publically changed their stance
But I was re-reading the UWS fanzine from September (maybe a month either side) today which stated that the Dubai Royal Family were in talks with the Glazers to buy the club earlier this year, but talks stopped
If true, presumably that's one to watch now that the Glazers have publically changed their stance
5 years ago there would have been very few if any who would be open to state backing, now a lot more would be open to it. Just shows how badly our current owners have run us that we even consider it.
Back then, when Avram was pictured with Dubai reps, they were saying it was due to them having an interest in buying a cricket team!
I would like to think so. But I doubt it, I’m what did we spend this summer 200 million + no club can afford that and stay solvent.
It's difficult to see how to effectively compete against state-backed clubs without going the same way. FFP was meant to mitigate that somewhat, but it's a complete sham since football authorities couldn't be bothered to actually enforce it.
As much as it galls plenty of fans to have state ownership, we really don't have much of a say in who the owners sell the club to. It's also, unfortunately, the only way we get an owner who won't take money out of the club, and who will inject the funds needed to upgrade the club's facilities.
I, for one, do not welcome the idea of new overlords, for whatever it's worth.
As much as it galls plenty of fans to have state ownership, we really don't have much of a say in who the owners sell the club to. It's also, unfortunately, the only way we get an owner who won't take money out of the club, and who will inject the funds needed to upgrade the club's facilities.
I, for one, do not welcome the idea of new overlords, for whatever it's worth.
One thing they do well is get competent people to run their organizations.
It won't be Woodward and his pals. If you don't deliver then you are out.
It won't be Woodward and his pals. If you don't deliver then you are out.
Thats bollocks its not a democracy then. If the govt had been pro brexit and the result had been the other way around, you would have been happy for the govt to pull us out?
So why are PSG still an absolutely shambolic organisation?
Why did Manchester City keep Garry Cook on until his position was legally untenable with the Nedum Onouha scandal?
Between those two clubs (the only ones we can compare with) that’s <40% of the time they’ve been run competently. Not exactly a strong return, is it?
Of course not because that would have been as disasterous as what we have now.
We are a representative democracy and the referendum was advisory. It was so close and the consequences so severe that the only sensible thing to do would have been not to act on it. Certainly not at such breakneck speed with added utter incompetence.
But we don't have politicians who act in the interests of the country so on they blundered.
I can just say one thing here, when I started following United, as a kid, I didn’t even know that there exist “owners”. What I’m saying here, I support the club, I don’t care who the owners are If I’m being honest. I also loathe everything the potential owners stand for, but both can be true at the same time.
We have suffered as a club, some don’t even understand the gravity of our potential loss during the past 17 years, and the cost of cutting these losses are insurmountable. Can you even imagine where this club would have been with just the money we made ourselves? God forbid the Owners invested something on top like say a new stadium/training facilities? That would have been unfair on the rest of Europe.
Even if we get state ownership, the difference between us and every other oil owned club is that we don’t actually need the money. The only thing we need is the debt cleared, as it was before the leeches came, it would take us a fair few years, but we would be back sooner rather then later. And even if they did invest, it would need to exceed 2b just to cover what we lost to the parasites.
We have suffered as a club, some don’t even understand the gravity of our potential loss during the past 17 years, and the cost of cutting these losses are insurmountable. Can you even imagine where this club would have been with just the money we made ourselves? God forbid the Owners invested something on top like say a new stadium/training facilities? That would have been unfair on the rest of Europe.
Even if we get state ownership, the difference between us and every other oil owned club is that we don’t actually need the money. The only thing we need is the debt cleared, as it was before the leeches came, it would take us a fair few years, but we would be back sooner rather then later. And even if they did invest, it would need to exceed 2b just to cover what we lost to the parasites.
Sorry dont agree. Its a democracy, so if they give you a vote and it goes against what you believe, you have to accept it, whether its slightly over or not.
Covid has buggered up our economy and Russia is now. We cant judge whether Brexit would have worked or not. We would have still been in the same shit if we had stopped in. Look at Europes economies and inflation.
I’m sorry but “we can’t judge it because X happened!” Is utter nonsense. There’s always events in the world that can be used by that logic, it’s just deflection.
Particularly daft when talking about something like Russia, which is intrinsically linked to Brexit.