Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?

[Adam-Utd]

To me, the real hypocrisy is not minding a state(-backed) owner but being against a Super League. The entire argument was about the football pyramid, fairness and all that. But if the money comes to United, then nobody cares, right? It's all good,as long as we are winning.

Reading responses here makes it so much easier to understand why the world is in its current state. People never want to take any responsibility for the bad things if they are benefiting them, or at least not impacting them directly...

I guess the issue is there is already state owned teams in the league. It’s kind of too late to make a stand, as you’ll only be cutting your nose off refusing the money when it’ll just go elsewhere.

If you are comfortable with United being 7-8th best in the country regularly then fair enough, but some don’t want to see that.

If there is a better option out there, or the league actually makes a proper FFP system then great. Until then, the likes of City will only become harder and harder to stop.

 

[Dion]

Yeah yeah yeah…. All these people raising their voices about the end of the world if we are backed by a state will be posting with cheers the moment we start winning leagues…. The hypocrisy will be amazing to watch….

See, this entire wall of text is completely destroyed in one sentence.

I don't want the UK government to own Man Utd for PR purposes either.

Why do you keep making statements that only make sense based on an assumption that everyone who lives in a state agrees with the actions of the state? You know that's not true, it's extremely disingenuous.

We're not our government. How many of the people here do you think are okay selling arms to Saudi Arabia?

This idea that you cannot take a moral stance because your government does something is just so far beyond banal, its ridiculous. I don't want the UK government to own Man Utd either.

Nobody wants the UK government to own Man Utd either. This is a braindead argument.

SAF once absolutely hammered Solskjaer for making a tactical foul against Newcastle in the 97/98 season. If you think the man put aside every moral he had to win then you don't know the club as well as you think you do.

Etc.

This argument is ridiculous the first 150 times it was made, it's still just as ridiculous the 151st.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

This is the single dumbest post I’ve seen on the internet, congratulations I guess?

Congratulations? For what? “Phelan shorts think I wrote the dumbest post?”

You guys are narcissistic pseudo intellectuals who want the world to be shaped according their inner understanding.

We are supporting a football club. We have different values, opinions and views on how the world should operate. Don’t throw everything into mix.

If it is allowed for a state to buy a football club then it is a part of the game. Then someone has an advantage. And I want that advantage too. I don’t give a feck what is your or anyone’s else political stance is

 

[justsomebloke]

Congratulations? For what? “Phelan shorts think I wrote the dumbest post?”

You guys are narcissistic pseudo intellectuals who want the world to be shaped according their inner understanding.

We are supporting a football club. We have different values, opinions and views on how the world should operate. Don’t throw everything into mix.

If it is allowed for a state to buy a football club then it is a part of the game. Then someone has an advantage. And I want that advantage too. I don’t give a feck what is your or anyone’s else political stance is

What about the broader interests of the Premier League, and European club football at large? Does that interest you at all?

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

Looking at the bigger picture is "hypocrisy"? It's not fundamentally about idealism (although that certainly remains a valid angle too), it's about power and who has it. We're at a point where the flood of oil money threatens to make it impossible for clubs run on any other basis to remain competitive, and where the terms of the international game is set according to the needs and requirements of parties that have no attachment to the basic interest of European national leagues. Do you think the Saudis and Qatar care about the English football pyramid? Why do you think FIFA wants the expanded Club world cup and a 48-team World Cup every three years? FIFA gets more money, and foreign owners get more competitions that are more meaningful to them than European club football. As things stand, it will continue to develop in this direction, and it won't take many more of the handful of top European clubs being controlled by oil money before the ability of European leagues to stand up to that development and protect its own interests is fatally undercut. It's not about United, it would be just as bad if Liverpool ends up going that route.

I am not touched with your worries regarding the world order and injustice. It’s just your opinion. And I am not rejecting multi billion investments to keep Man United status in world football because you decided to be politically active in a wrong place.
Go to streets, arrange a political party, do whatever necessary to ban Abu Dhabi, Qatar money from football and we talk.

 

[Steve Bruce]

What about the broader interests of the Premier League, and European club football at large? Does that interest you at all?

That ship sailed long ago.

If everyone looked out for each other clubs like Ajax, red star, old firm etc etc would be in a position to be competitive in Europe but greed took over and now Europe is pretty much a closed shop for everyone outside of England, Spain and bayarn.

 

[Steve Bruce]

I am not touched with your worries regarding the world order and injustice. It’s just your opinion. And I am not rejecting multi billion investments to keep Man United status in world football because you decided to be politically active in a wrong place.
Go to streets, arrange a political party, do whatever necessary to ban Abu Dhabi, Qatar money from football and we talk.

This is fantasy, there's no stopping that. The horse has bolted no point in closing the gate now it's done.

 

[georgipep]

I guess the issue is there is already state owned teams in the league. It’s kind of too late to make a stand, as you’ll only be cutting your nose off refusing the money when it’ll just go elsewhere.

If you are comfortable with United being 7-8th best in the country regularly then fair enough, but some don’t want to see that.

If there is a better option out there, or the league actually makes a proper FFP system then great. Until then, the likes of City will only become harder and harder to stop.

So, to give an analogy, because there is corruption around us, we might as well become part of it because otherwise we are left behind and others are benefitting instead of us, right?

I guess because there is war, exploitation, and all kinds of bad things going on, their mere existence normalises them?

 

[Devil81]

It's the only way to compete long term.

 

[Gurtej]

Yes and how many centuries ago was that? Every country on the planet has blood on its hands. Some learned and moved on, others haven't. Reducing every single topic to what Britain did in the colonies is the sort of thing youd expect to see in a piece of school homework, or a Guardian opinion piece.

None of us want to see our club in the hands of a murderous regime. We aren't starved of success and desperate the way some clubs are. Us, Arsenal, Liverpool, we are all clubs that should aim for better.

The only positive to Saudi ownership would be the look on Toon faces when they get dropped for a bigger and better sportswashing project.

In the moderm world, US and England have the most blood on their hands… let’s not allow anyone from US or UK to invest….

 

[Sviken]

No. And it has nothing to do with morals or politics or anything like that. I just think that it's boring for football when actual states start owning football clubs. I mean, when does this whole money inflation even stop? Win 20 titles on the trot from now and what's the point? I won't feel any joy knowing we only won them because we bullied the opposition with an endless pit of money. Take a look at City or PSG. What joy do these numbnuts derive from their titles? I'd feel embarrassed winning like that.

Edit: At any rate I just want to say I understand the reality and there's no stopping this train. It's either hop on or get left behind. But I also stand that on the fact that it'll probably kill what joy I have that remains of watching football.

 

[Adam-Utd]

So, to give an analogy, because there is corruption around us, we might as well become part of it because otherwise we are left behind and others are benefitting instead of us, right?

I guess because there is war, exploitation, and all kinds of bad things going on, their mere existence normalises them?

It seems you want a perfect fairyland world? that just isn't the reality.

If Oil states are wanting to buy a football club, if it's not us it's somebody else. Clearly the PL aren't wanting to stop that happening, so if it's not United it'll be Tottenham, West Ham etc.

I'd much prefer the PL to put in place proper spending rules, but it won't happen.

We need the Glazers to be replaced as they will never clear the debt and keep sucking the lifeblood of the club. Do I want state ownership? no, but it might be required.

Unless we can find a billionaire who has a squeaky clean track record, we aren't left with many options.

 

[georgipep]

Congratulations? For what? “Phelan shorts think I wrote the dumbest post?”

You guys are narcissistic pseudo intellectuals who want the world to be shaped according their inner understanding.

We are supporting a football club. We have different values, opinions and views on how the world should operate. Don’t throw everything into mix.

If it is allowed for a state to buy a football club then it is a part of the game. Then someone has an advantage. And I want that advantage too. I don’t give a feck what is your or anyone’s else political stance is

You seem to follow a "by any allowed means necessary" philosophy. Cool, I (and other posters and fans) do not.

 

[Mart1974]

I don't support the Glazers, I didn't support the previous owners and I won't support the next. I support Manchester United. That is the end of it.

 

[Tarrou]

Yeah yeah yeah…. All these people raising their voices about the end of the world if we are backed by a state will be posting with cheers the moment we start winning leagues…. The hypocrisy will be amazing to watch….

I didn't think it was possible to make a dumber post than your last one but congrats

 

[georgipep]

It seems you want a perfect fairyland world? that just isn't the reality.

If Oil states are wanting to buy a football club, if it's not us it's somebody else. Clearly the PL aren't wanting to stop that happening, so if it's not United it'll be Tottenham, West Ham etc.

I'd much prefer the PL to put in place proper spending rules, but it won't happen.

We need the Glazers to be replaced as they will never clear the debt and keep sucking the lifeblood of the club. Do I want state ownership? no, but it might be required.

Unless we can find a billionaire who has a squeaky clean track record, we aren't left with many options.

I don't want perfect at all. I prefer the Glazers with all their faults to a state(-backed) owner. Simple as that.

And I don't want winning at any cost. I prefer if the football club I follow and support to broadly align with my beliefs, morals and philosophy.

If it doesn't, there is no enjoyment in following and supporting them.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

You seem to follow a "by any allowed means necessary" philosophy. Cool, I (and other posters and fans) do not.

Okay, while you guys are expressing yourselves, world football turned into money race. It started in 1992.

United used to be the richest and most successful (on the pitch) club in England. Now, it’s City. Rise of Chelsea, Newcastle performance this season. See the correlation?

I don’t want United to turn into Nottingham Forest living in its past. This is not an exaggeration. It’s matter of time. New generation of fans globally already percept United as Spurs level team.

I might provoke a lot of hatred, but have to say this: Fans in Britain are so egocentric, arrogant and short sighted.

Global fan base made United what it is now. We boast our number of fans throughout the world. But the core of this fan base is already 40+. Will you ever realize it?

 

[daveskimufc]

That ship sailed long ago.

If everyone looked out for each other clubs like Ajax, red star, old firm etc etc would be in a position to be competitive in Europe but greed took over and now Europe is pretty much a closed shop for everyone outside of England, Spain and bayarn.

Absolutely right, cash is king, ethics have gone

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

This is fantasy, there's no stopping that. The horse has bolted no point in closing the gate now it's done.

Of course it is a fantasy. Money is king in football for 30 years now. Wether it an oil state or a nice white British Sir Billionaire doesn’t make a big difference.

 

[georgipep]

Okay, while you guys are expressing yourselves, world football turned into money race. It started in 1992.

United used to be the richest and most successful (on the pitch) club in England. Now, it’s City. Rise of Chelsea, Newcastle performance this season. See the correlation?

I don’t want United to turn into Nottingham Forest living in its past. This is not an exaggeration. It’s matter of time. New generation of fans globally already percept United as Spurs level team.

I might provoke a lot of hatred, but have to say this: Fans in Britain are so egocentric, arrogant and short sighted.

Global fan base made United what it is now. We boast our number of fans throughout the world. But the core of this fan base is already 40+. Will you ever realize it?

I don't see the connection between the statements you make.
Yes, football is a money game.
Yes, football is a global game.
Yes, United are one of the most popular teams in the world.
Maybe some fans perceive Manchester United and Spurs on similar levels.
What does that have to do with being okay with a state(-backed) owner?

I do not subscribe to the "win at any cost" philosophy. If United falls further back because they are not owned by a state, that's fine by me. My support of the club is not dependent on United winning.

If anything, it is dependent on the club aligning broadly with my personal beliefs, morals and philosophy.

If United become state(-backed) owned, then I would have to look long and hard at myself and decide if supporting a football club justifies not being true to my principles.

 

[georgipep]

Okay, while you guys are expressing yourselves, world football turned into money race. It started in 1992.

United used to be the richest and most successful (on the pitch) club in England. Now, it’s City. Rise of Chelsea, Newcastle performance this season. See the correlation?

I don’t want United to turn into Nottingham Forest living in its past. This is not an exaggeration. It’s matter of time. New generation of fans globally already percept United as Spurs level team.

I might provoke a lot of hatred, but have to say this: Fans in Britain are so egocentric, arrogant and short sighted.

Global fan base made United what it is now. We boast our number of fans throughout the world. But the core of this fan base is already 40+. Will you ever realize it?

Reading your post again makes me strongly believe you support a club for the bragging rights. That is perfectly fine and I don't think this is a more or less valid reason to support a club.

It does help me understand the starting point of your thinking and explains the rest to a certain extent.

The "fans in Britain" part is mostly incorrect, in my opinion, because there are plenty of examples of British fans who not only accept but normalise club being owned by states (City and Newcastle fans). And there are plenty of United fans who are not British (like myself) who do not accept it too.

But why don't you ask yourself what is more important for you: United winning or you supporting them? It's great when the two overlap but I think it's healthy for every fan to know where they stand anyways.

 

[Castia]

Show me the money, show me the money!

State backed funds all day long bring it on.

 

[justsomebloke]

That ship sailed long ago.

If everyone looked out for each other clubs like Ajax, red star, old firm etc etc would be in a position to be competitive in Europe but greed took over and now Europe is pretty much a closed shop for everyone outside of England, Spain and bayarn.

That ship has not sailed - it can still get a lot worse. The football world still revolves to a large extent around European club football. But we've lost FIFA, who clearly no longer cares much about that - to them their revenue streams lie elsewhere, and they have become the clients of moneyed interests elsewhere. We only conditionally and partly still have UEFA on board - they'll resist any independent encroachment like the ESL because that basically takes their revenue, but at the same time they've proven again and again that they don't really care if their own revenue-producing tournaments go against the interests of the national leagues. They will both continue to try to suck as much as possible of the finite resource of top player game time into international and global tournaments and away from national leagues and cups, because that's where their money is and that's what their patrons want.

The fundamental economic realities of the game have shifted the power and hence the focus - away from the local, and towards the global. The main bulwark keeping things in place is the continued commitment of Europe's dozen or so big clubs to their national leagues - a commitment which the ESL debacle showed to be more than a little shaky. The moment they break out, the European pyramid is dead as anything other than a recruitment system and a second- or third-rate competition. Neither American or mid east owners have any intrinsic attachment to the European club system. The Americans will be attracted by the commercial potential of a closed league, but the mid-east owners will additionally be attracted by the possibility to shift the prestige of top clubs to a more global stage, and by the expansion of international tournaments (both club and national teams) that are more directly relevant to their own home constituencies. Right now, only 2-3 of that dozen clubs are owned by sovereign oil money, if that becomes 6 or 7, we're looking at a very different reality.

So I think it's really quite myopic to think only in terms of how oil money ownership would work for United, in isolation.

 

[Von Mistelroum]

I'm not completely to to speed with this stuff but as far as I'm aware, there are two likely scenarios:

1. State backed ownership where we would likely get a lot of money into the club, with the intent of either being a 'toy' for billionaires, or a PR tool for a country.

2. A group buys United for profit, taking out dividends etc., and trying to make money from the club instead of put money in.

The likelihood of anything else is pretty low I believe, and since I don't want United to die, I would prefer option 1.

 

[red thru&thru]

If anything, it is dependent on the club aligning broadly with my personal beliefs, morals and philosophy.

Out of curiosity, how does the club currently align with your personal beliefs, morals and philosophy?

 

[RORY65]

Okay, while you guys are expressing yourselves, world football turned into money race. It started in 1992.

United used to be the richest and most successful (on the pitch) club in England. Now, it’s City. Rise of Chelsea, Newcastle performance this season. See the correlation?

I don’t want United to turn into Nottingham Forest living in its past. This is not an exaggeration. It’s matter of time. New generation of fans globally already percept United as Spurs level team.

I might provoke a lot of hatred, but have to say this: Fans in Britain are so egocentric, arrogant and short sighted.

Global fan base made United what it is now. We boast our number of fans throughout the world. But the core of this fan base is already 40+. Will you ever realize it?

How come Liverpool have been so competitive for years and Arsenal are now 7 points clear? United running as a business have spent more than enough to be competitive in the last decade but they've just been run like fecking morons, it's not that they've been blown out of the water financially. It's for that reason that we have become a Europa League level team, not that we haven't had state ownership.

Ignoring how gross it is morally, the City project is utterly vapid despite them playing some of the best football English football has ever seen. United fans have spent years actively rooting for them to win the league, obviously mostly because otherwise it would be Liverpool but also because nobody cares about what they're doing or considers their achievements as worthwhile. Even their own fans don't bother turning up because it's such a soulless exercise.

If United don't win the league for decades to come (which almost certainly won't happen by the way, it will be their turn again at some stage) then we will have seen more success than fans of 99.99% of clubs ever get to experience and if we do get back there I would like it to be because we were smarter and better than everyone else, not because we fell arse first into a lottery win so we could be a tool for some oil state's grander global plans.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

I don't see the connection between the statements you make.
Yes, football is a money game.
Yes, football is a global game.
Yes, United are one of the most popular teams in the world.
Maybe some fans perceive Manchester United and Spurs on similar levels.
What does that have to do with being okay with a state(-backed) owner?

I do not subscribe to the "win at any cost" philosophy. If United falls further back because they are not owned by a state, that's fine by me. My support of the club is not dependent on United winning.

If anything, it is dependent on the club aligning broadly with my personal beliefs, morals and philosophy.

If United become state(-backed) owned, then I would have to look long and hard at myself and decide if supporting a football club justifies not being true to my principles.

Our business model is not sustainable. The money we make is not enough to make both profit for the owner and keep us even in top 4 consistently.

We are miles behind City and Chelsea in terms of critical club infrastructure: everyone from stadium to training facilities. We need hundreds of millions to improve in this areas. Without those investments we are gradually becoming a second tier club for talented players. This is the key factor behind our shitty transfer record. No (unbiased) high caliber player who cares about his career will choose us over Madrid or Bayern.

We are relying on our past glory and fan base which is diminishing.

States/vanity investors attach additional value to the club, a normal investor can’t afford that and spend accordingly.

So, a State can bankroll us. Otherwise, we have to accept Torino fate. Torino used to be a bigger club than Juve. But Juve was backed by FIAT.

I choose to be bankrolled, you choose to quit as Utd fan. Whose opinion is more important for the club?

 

[Dion]

In the moderm world, US and England have the most blood on their hands… let’s not allow anyone from US or UK to invest….

It's not "someone" is it though? It's a direct actor for the state. And we shouldn't let the UK government buy Man Utd either.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

How come Liverpool have been so competitive for years and Arsenal are now 7 points clear? United running as a business have spent more than enough to be competitive in the last decade but they've just been run like fecking morons, it's not that they've been blown out of the water financially. It's for that reason that we have become a Europa League level team, not that we haven't had state ownership.

Ignoring how gross it is morally, the City project is utterly vapid despite them playing some of the best football English football has ever seen. United fans have spent years actively rooting for them to win the league, obviously mostly because otherwise it would be Liverpool but also because nobody cares about what they're doing or considers their achievements as worthwhile. Even their own fans don't bother turning up because it's such a soulless exercise.

If United don't win the league for decades to come (which almost certainly won't happen by the way, it will be their turn again at some stage) then we will have seen more success than fans of 99.99% of clubs ever get to experience and if we do get back there I would like it to be because we were smarter and better than everyone else, not because we fell arse first into a lottery win so we could be a tool for some oil state's grander global plans.

I’m not discussing abstract ideas and comparisons. Please read our financial statements and compare Old Trafford and Carrington with rivals facilities.

Then ask yourself: where do we get the money?

 

[georgipep]

Our business model is not sustainable. The money we make is not enough to make both profit for the owner and keep us even in top 4 consistently.

We are miles behind City and Chelsea in terms of critical club infrastructure: everyone from stadium to training facilities. We need hundreds of millions to improve in this areas. Without those investments we are gradually becoming a second tier club for talented players. This is the key factor behind our shitty transfer record. No (unbiased) high caliber player who cares about his career will choose us over Madrid or Bayern.

We are relying on our past glory and fan base which is diminishing.

States/vanity investors attach additional value to the club, a normal investor can’t afford that and spend accordingly.

So, a State can bankroll us. Otherwise, we have to accept Torino fate. Torino used to be a bigger club than Juve. But Juve was backed by FIAT.

I choose to be bankrolled, you choose to quit as Utd fan. Whose opinion is more important for the club?

First of all, what are we debating here? Whose opinion is more important for the club? I thought we were discussing if we would be okay for the club to be state owned.
But you seem to be mixing several different scenarios and assumptions here.

1. You seem to have a different debate in your mind, as stated above.
2. You seem to assume in your response that we've already been bought by a state and I've chosen to quit being a fan.

I'll try to address them both.

1. If we are talking about whose opinion is more important for the club, I'd say the club cares mostly about whoever helps to generate revenues. Whether this is happening directly through purchases of merch, stadium visits, etc. , or indirectly, by being a follower online. I'm assuming the club has some kind of monetary value attached to each "type" of fan. For example, a match-going fan would have a value of 500x, while an online-only fan who doesn't even buy any merch, could be valued 1x. Then, the question becomes what do the high-value fans think and want, doesn't it? Sadly, not every fan is equal in the eyes of owners who are driven by business rationale.
The above premise may be completely irrelevant in a state-owned situation, because there won't be a business-driven rationale to back it.

But then we move to point 2. If we are truly bought by a state, I would have to think long and hard what is more important to me: supporting United or being true to my principles. And you are probably right, my support will change and diminish.

But, please try to be clear in your thoughts and responses, because you do seem to mix up a lot of different topics and points, making the debate extremely difficult and pointless.

 

[11101]

In the moderm world, US and England have the most blood on their hands… let’s not allow anyone from US or UK to invest….

Again, it's a childish argument you'd expect to see from schoolchildren.

 

[RORY65]

I’m not discussing abstract ideas and comparisons. Please read our financial statements and compare Old Trafford and Carrington with rivals facilities.

Then ask yourself: where do we get the money?

Any owner who comes in will be committed to capital investment, the cost of work on the stadium is maybe the main reason the Glazer's want to sell so why would anyone come in without a plan of how to fund the work to do on it? Please don't pretend that this is to do with the stadium while you're moaning about the fans in the UK (the ones who most often attend Old Trafford) being arrogant, just say you want Mbappe.

 

[phelans shorts]

I choose to be bankrolled, you choose to quit as Utd fan. Whose opinion is more important for the club?

Given nobody on the planet considers Manchester City to be the same club as they were in 2006 your faux intelligent post really doesn’t hold up to even the merest scrutiny.

 

[georgipep]

Out of curiosity, how does the club currently align with your personal beliefs, morals and philosophy?

The business side doesn't bother me. The owners are making decisions driven by their business interests and I get that.
I may not like it but it doesn't clash with any of my beliefs, morals or philosophy. They are diminishing the value of their asset for the sake of taking profits. I may not do the same if I were in their position, but I get it.

Poor management (when evaluated by football performance metrics) and being a poor custodian of an asset of public significance are not on my "make or break" list.

If anything, Ronaldo (and possibly soon Greenwood) was a far bigger grief in my book and has been a significant reason for my diminishing interest in the club in the past two years.

 

[phelans shorts]

First of all, what are we debating here? Whose opinion is more important for the club? I thought we were discussing if we would be okay for the club to be state owned.
But you seem to be mixing several different scenarios and assumptions here.

1. You seem to have a different debate in your mind, as stated above.
2. You seem to assume in your response that we've already been bought by a state and I've chosen to quit being a fan.

I'll try to address them both.

1. If we are talking about whose opinion is more important for the club, I'd say the club cares mostly about whoever helps to generate revenues. Whether this is happening directly through purchases of merch, stadium visits, etc. , or indirectly, by being a follower online. I'm assuming the club has some kind of monetary value attached to each "type" of fan. For example, a match-going fan would have a value of 500x, while an online-only fan who doesn't even buy any merch, could be valued 1x. Then, the question becomes what do the high-value fans think and want, doesn't it? Sadly, not every fan is equal in the eyes of owners who are driven by business rationale.
The above premise may be completely irrelevant in a state-owned situation, because there won't be a business-driven rationale to back it.

But then we move to point 2. If we are truly bought by a state, I would have to think long and hard what is more important to me: supporting United or being true to my principles. And you are probably right, my support will change and diminish.

But, please try to be clear in your thoughts and responses, because you do seem to mix up a lot of different topics and points, making the debate extremely difficult and pointless.

Oh, that’s definitely deliberate. Anything to obfuscate because that way you can “win” an online argument and not have to look inward and ask difficult questions.

 

[Nicolarra90]

No. And it has nothing to do with morals or politics or anything like that. I just think that it's boring for football when actual states start owning football clubs. I mean, when does this whole money inflation even stop? Win 20 titles on the trot from now and what's the point? I won't feel any joy knowing we only won them because we bullied the opposition with an endless pit of money. Take a look at City or PSG. What joy do these numbnuts derive from their titles? I'd feel embarrassed winning like that.

Edit: At any rate I just want to say I understand the reality and there's no stopping this train. It's either hop on or get left behind. But I also stand that on the fact that it'll probably kill what joy I have that remains of watching football.

Nonsense as there are already 2 (or 3 if you add Chelsea) multibillionaire teams so there's already competition for it.
As you said it's either hop on the train or become Aston Villa.

 

[justsomebloke]

Our business model is not sustainable. The money we make is not enough to make both profit for the owner and keep us even in top 4 consistently.

We are miles behind City and Chelsea in terms of critical club infrastructure: everyone from stadium to training facilities. We need hundreds of millions to improve in this areas. Without those investments we are gradually becoming a second tier club for talented players. This is the key factor behind our shitty transfer record. No (unbiased) high caliber player who cares about his career will choose us over Madrid or Bayern.

We are relying on our past glory and fan base which is diminishing.

States/vanity investors attach additional value to the club, a normal investor can’t afford that and spend accordingly.

So, a State can bankroll us. Otherwise, we have to accept Torino fate. Torino used to be a bigger club than Juve. But Juve was backed by FIAT.

I choose to be bankrolled, you choose to quit as Utd fan. Whose opinion is more important for the club?

Yes it is. Demonstrably. We've outspent City (and every other club) over the past decade, by a pretty large margin. While being the only big club in Europe where the owners have taken money out of the club.

Premier League - Transfer income and expenditures | Transfermarkt

 

[red thru&thru]

The business side doesn't bother me. The owners are making decisions driven by their business interests and I get that.
I may not like it but it doesn't clash with any of my beliefs, morals or philosophy. They are diminishing the value of their asset for the sake of taking profits. I may not do the same if I were in their position, but I get it.

Poor management (when evaluated by football performance metrics) and being a poor custodian of an asset of public significance are not on my "make or break" list.

If anything, Ronaldo (and possibly soon Greenwood) was a far bigger grief in my book and has been a significant reason for my diminishing interest in the club in the past two years.

What are these?

 

[Gurtej]

How many of you will stop buying petrol tomorrow in your country as most if not all of it is coming from the terrible Middle East countries??? And it directly funds all the terrible deeds they do and make them richer

If you won’t stop after reading this msg, than stop being a woke hypocrites in this

 

[RORY65]

How many of you will stop buying petrol tomorrow in your country as most if not all of it is coming from the terrible Middle East countries??? And it directly funds all the terrible deeds they

If you won’t stop after reading this msg, than stop being a woke hypocrites in this

Stop using the word "woke". Nobody is going to take on board anything you say while throwing that word around like an incel.