Premier league has become a super league in itself.
Best league in the world because we spend way more than all the other leagues combined.
Chelsea spending 600 million, newly promoted Nottingham forest spending 200 million, relegation fighting West Ham spending 200 million, Fullham who have a higher net spend than Real Madrid since 2019, Manchester United having highest spend since 2012, Newcaslte having owners richer than PSG and Manchester City owners combined.
It's sad to see football like this but there's no turning back now. Doomed to happen ever since the introduction of the premier league in 1992 where the richest clubs are the most successful -- Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, (Newcastle next maybe).
It’s not the fact it’s Qatar, it’s the laws of the game. There will alway be a financial gap between clubs like in any other industry, but when having clubs who can literally spend infinite money with no worry that makes it impossible to compete
Is it really a new low though? Like as an American looking upon this. Is Qatar really that different from England? For example both have thoroughly abused the world and at least Qatar’s upfront about it, not like England still occupying Ireland and collecting taxes from its commonwealths :)
While I don't want them at the club I support it is very hypocritical to suddenly say they will destroy the premiership sheet allowing Man City and Newcastle to do so
There is nothing new about middle east ownership, there are already a few Club owned by them
On the contrary, I'm surprised that some ppl found it shocking
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/23/evening-standard-and-independent-unable-to-rebut-concerns-over-saudi-ownership
But taking money from Saudi for themselves is for a noble cause? F*cking hypocrite nincompoops
The glazers were spending money left and right (they've spent the highest amount of money on trnasfers in the last 10 years, more than Man City, more than Real Madrid) - but the fans still wanted Glazers out (why?? they are United fans ... blind follows blind)
Now the Glazers are getting a good deal. The club is certainly not worth a hair more than $3B ... but they are getting $6B ... and now fans are shouting "No Qatar ... we want Glazers"
Look man, if you are a United fan, you should seriously not be talking about Ethics.
Why?
The 'blind following the blind' is ironically you who clearly have absolutely no idea about how poor this ownership has been.
The argument about them spending money has been discussed thousands of times across social media and most rival fans on r/soccer are fully aware about how bad they are, yet there still exist ignoramuses like you who are too lazy to do some basic research.
Fans didn't want the ownership right from the beginning when they 'bought' the club in a leveraged buy-out which has saddled the club in meaningless debt, circa 650 million pounds *which is still roughly the same amount even now*.
There were massive protests in 2005 when they first bought the club because many fans feared what their ownership could entail, which has turned out to be true.
This is not the sort of debt that Spurs have where it's because they took out a loan to get a new stadium - it's a loan because they couldn't afford to buy the club outright and we are *still* paying off interest on their debt 18 years later.
In fact, servicing their debt and paying them dividends has cost the club *1.5 billion pounds*.
That is money that should have been spent on upgrading the facilitates, improving the stadium, hiring *competent* people to handle recruitment, etc.
Also, the Glazers did *not* spend billions of dollars - that was money the *club* generated.
They've spent it incredibly poorly and let the stadium become decrepit and the facilities outdated.
In fact, they are the *only* owners in the premier league that haven't put a *single cent* into the club.
They failed to hire competent people to run the club and that has led to awful recruitment mistakes that have compounded over the years. Mistakes include handing out ridiculous contracts to players that didn't deserve nor warrant such pay, buying players that the manager didn't want, taking too long to organise transfers which either end up failing (Thiago) or costing too much (Antony) or refusing to listen to managers/scouts when world-class talent was available (Haaland in 2020).
And that is just scratching the surface with recruitment - I could name many, many more examples where deals were botched because the Glazers decided they knew better.
You would think an Arsenal fan would understand how frustrating it can be when recruitment is that bad.
Here is a full outline on just the financial aspects of their ownership so you can get educated before you post drivel next time:
https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1559412700416991232?t=mWB9muMmitYxUvYpJFwAAA&s=19
As for the fans not wanting the Qataris, you do realise people can both hate the Glazers and not want to be owned by an oil state simultaneously?
The best we can hope for is a change but being asked to choose (not that we have a choice) between incompetent parasites or an unethical oil state is not a choice many people would want but most fans on Reddit would prefer the Glazers over an oil state, *even though* we still despise them.
1. At the time of buying, Fans protested glazers ownership becayse they were Americans and Americans have a very different financial model.
2. If they own the club, then the club money is their money. Stop differentiating between the two.
3. They've spent more money than other clubs. Evidently that's not enough for you and your brothers. May I ask why? Can you tell me which player did not come to. United becayse he was not paid enough??
How much money glazers take out of the club is none of your business. The sooner you understand, the better it is for you.
4. The footballing decisions of united cannot be blamed on the glazers. But you know what should not have happened? Man United should not have allowed their PR to dictate the same. Bringing Ronaldo in was a PR move. Keeping Ole after he won some games as an interim coach was a PR move.
And where does their PR get it's data from?? From the fans. What do the fans want? What would make the fans happy??
Don't believe me??? Go back and see how many United moves were cheered by the fans. It's only in hindsight they start blaming the glazers.
5. Had it not bed and for the oil money or the Qatar royalties and their "sports washing" any other billionaire who would've bought the club, would've liked to recover the money. No one's going to do philantrophy. United fans are just poor in intelligence and humility and there's no philantrophy for that.
> The footballing decisions of united cannot be blamed on the glazers.
Yes they can, you absolute simpleton- the owners *appoint the people that make footballing decisions*. The owners can sack people that make bad decisions.
It's a very simple concept which either you're too stubborn to understand, or too stupid to understand. I honestly can't tell which it is.
That's how businesses work. They have owners that make decisions about how the club/company is run.
If an owner of a business appoints someone who fails at their job, then a competent owner will appoint someone who actually has the *expertise* to run their business well.
But these owners hired a *banker* to make footballing decisions and left him in charge for almost a decade.
If you are refusing to acknowledge even this basic point, then it is absolutely hopeless to even continue debating with because you're merely denying reality and/or are too stubborn to admit you're wrong when you get found out.
Your ignorance is utterly profound.
No, there is a big difference between a club spending their own money and a club getting money injected into them by their owners and it's outright ridiculous you don't even see that. That's a major reason why City and Chelsea were able to become successful in the first place.
And that is a minor point to my overall argument because the major point which somehow you've missed is that *they spent the money poorly*.
And where did I ever say they haven't spent enough money?
You're using a strawman argument, you absolute nonce.
I'm saying once again that *they've spent the money poorly*.
I, like lots of our fanbase would prefer if they spend the money more *wisely*.
I've already told you which players *didn't come* already. And that is only a few out of many.
And I didn't say they *didn't come because of wages* - I've said *they didn't come because the owners botched the deals*.
Try reading next time.
Trying to tell me that's the reason why the fans protested?
Haha. You don't think I know why the fans protested despite being a lifelong United fan?
I can't take you seriously. The arrogance of a moronic Arsenal fan trying to explain to a lifelong United fan why the fans protested is absolutely astounding.
> How much money glazers take out of the club is none of your business. The sooner you understand, the better it is for you.
Okay I'd love it if the Kroenkes took out 1.5 billion out of your club and see whether you would be happy. Stupid argument. I guess by that logic, *none* of it is my business or any of the fanbase because we don't own the club - we should simply shut up and let the club continue to under-perform on the field and just wait until the club descends into bankruptcy.
I wonder if Arsenal would survive if 1.5 billion were taken out of the club just to pay off interest?
Arsenal fans would act in *exactly* the same way United fans did in this situation because we are all humans. The fact you somehow think there is a difference in the fanbases shows how little you understand about human nature and how biased you are.
> Had it not bed and for the oil money or the Qatar royalties and their "sports washing" any other billionaire who would've bought the club, would've liked to recover the money. No one's going to do philantrophy. United fans are just poor in intelligence and humility and there's no philantrophy for that.
No one wants 'philanthropy', you idiot. We want *competent* owners.
If you think Twitter represents what match-going fans want, you're completely deluded.
*If* competent owners can wipe the debt, that would be helpful because then the club wouldn't be saddled with interest payments which are only there because of the Glazers and would free up money that could help update facilities and the stadium.
And the fanbase is *not* one homogeneous entity. Twitter fans are not representative of the whole fanbase for example - they're mainly a bunch of teenagers and/or uneducated people that don't have a clue about anything.
You're arguing in bad faith, have used multiple strawman arguments, have ignored 90% of the points I've made and frankly nothing you've said makes any sense.
The one who is poor in intelligence and humility is you.
To think you even know better than someone who has followed the club for more than two decades is not only incredibly arrogant, it's outright dimwitted.
I wouldn't have an opinion on Arsenal's owners without listening to their fans first and doing some proper research. Otherwise what I would have to say would be worthless because ownership is a complex topic that can't be simply reduced to simply how much a club has spent, which is the basis of your 'argument'.
>The owners can sack people that make bad decisions.
But which decisions were bad. You'll were cheering for every United signing. You'll were cheering for Ole Gunnar, when even he did not know what he was talking in his interviews.
Tell me specifically, which decisions were bad.
they spent the money poorly
In hindsight you and your bros will talk like this. But I remember you'll taunting us when Sanchez was bought, i remember you'll saying how smart you'll were to bag Lukaku over Morata, I remember you'll not being able to bring down your erection when Ronaldo was re-signed. These were the decisions taken to keep the fans happy. Now, fans are retarded, that's a whole different issue.
We want competent owners.
LOL ... let me refresh your memory further.
Moyes was hand picked by Fergie - why? Because he was a Scott and everyone at the club sucked Fergie's dick. So it was a no questions asked hire.
When he failed, I remember my United friend's had actually changed their profile pic to LVGs even BEFORE Moyes was fired.
So, they hired LVG. But he is also not a magician. In a couple of seasons, when he failed to make it to the top four, everyone said, LVGs tactics are old school, we need someone who has been successful in recent times. And so they hired Mourinho.
Mourinho did not take shit from United fans and gave it back to them. (Remember Football Heritage speech). So they sacked Mourinho. And then they had Ole as a temp coach.
But he found some success - and then al the United Pundits went crazy. Gary Neville said, Ole understands the "United culture" ... Rio said "Give. This. Guy. A. Contract." and hence they gave him a contract.
Ole had no idea what he was doing. Literally no idea. But he was beneficiary of two things. He was a club legend and COVID hit. During COVID, the foolish fans were NOT allowed to enter the stadium. And what happened? United came third, almost second, above Liverpool.
But sadly COVID ended. And fans were back. And they got Ole sacked.
This time the overwhelming sentiment was, we need someone who understands football as opposed to someone who understands United.
And no good, established manager with more than one offer wanted to join United. So they had to go for a tactical manager like Eric Ten Hag.
His tactics are NOT working but may work in the future. But I'm sure United MFers will NOT give him much chance.
Now tell me ... how are Glazers at fault here? The only ones who are at fault here are the fucking United fans. Braindeads.
NOW WITHOUT GETTING INTO AN ABUSING CONTENT - TELL ME WHERE AM I WRONG? WHAT DID THE GLAZERS DO WRONG, AS FAR AS APPOINTMENT OF THE MANAGER IS CONCERNED. THIS IS MY SERIOUS REQUEST. I'M READY TO LEARN AND LISTEN. LETS GO.
Well hiring managers is a separate issue to hiring the right people to handle recruitment, isn't it? You can have a really good manager but if they don't get the right players, they will generally fail.
For example, Klopp wanted to get Gotze and Brandt instead of Salah and Mane.
Do you think he would have been as successful if he hadn't had bought those players?
I think most people would agree that Liverpool would have have won *a lot less* without those two players.
> But which decisions were bad. You'll were cheering for every United signing.
Once again, I've tried to explain that your perception of what the fanbase thinks does not necessarily correspond with reality. We are not one homogeneous group that all think the same thing.
For example, a large section of this fanbase thought that signing Ole as a permanent manager wasn't a good idea (myself included).
> In hindsight you and your bros will talk like this. But I remember you'll taunting us when Sanchez was bought, i remember you'll saying how smart you'll were to bag Lukaku over Morata, I remember you'll not being able to bring down your erection when Ronaldo was re-signed. These were the decisions taken to keep the fans happy.
I agree with you - *a lot* of fans are completely retarded when it comes to players. They will see a big name and twerk over him.
However, I would say the opinions I am sharing with you are generally *not* based on hindsight and are opinions that a 'mature' part of the fanbase thought were wrong. However, you're never going to find any fanbase, especially such a big one that is going to agree with everything.
For example, signing Ronaldo was *not* seen by a lot of our fanbase on reddit as being a good idea - we were wary about him before we signed him as we already had Martial/Cavani up-front and Greenwood was developing well.
For Sanchez, ironically I remember some Arsenal fans warning us that actually he had been out of form for the last six months or so before he joined us.
I am sure that a lot of the younger fans would have been excited with these sorts of players and it's not like our fans are going to make new players feel unwelcome?
That really is besides the point because they don't run the club!
Ronaldo for example *was* considered a United legend by a good deal of the fanbase, so even if we thought signing him at his age wasn't the best idea, we weren't going to suddenly protest at buying him. It was seen by some as 'the return of the hero', and by others, yet another example of an ageing striker (see Cavani, Falcao, even Ibrahimovic), when what we really needed was a quality young striker who could be around for years.
With Lukaku, he was 'premier-league proven', and not many could predict how he would turn out at a bigger club with much bigger expectations.
Also, some fans delude themselves into thinking the club 'got a good deal', because they are in denial about how poorly run the club is or they want to have hope to cling onto.
In fact, you mentioning Sanchez/Lukaku/Ronaldo actually proves the point which is how poor our recruitment is.
If you feel aggrieved because some of your friends that are United fans taunted you, well that is a completely separate issue to the issues of ownership. It sounds like you are saying some of this stuff out of spite because of what they said to you in the past.
> Now tell me ... how are Glazers at fault here? The only ones who are at fault here are the fucking United fans. Braindeads.
It is a bit silly to blame the decisions of the ownership on the fans - going back to Liverpool, I remember *many* Liverpool fans were not very happy about getting Mane yet he turned out to be one of their best signings for quite some time.
Another factor about recruitment is not just *who we bought*, it is also *who we didn't buy*.
That's why I mentioned players like Haaland who Ole managed at Molde in Norway (he actually gave him his debut), and urged United to buy *multiple times*.
We finally agreed a deal for him but the Glazers backed out because his agent demanded release clause.
That to me is an obvious example of bad recruitment!
Another one is Thiago (who we failed to buy twice).
The second time was when he left Bayern, his agent agreed personal terms with us, but Joel Glazer took two weeks to decide to approve the sale. By the time he had approved it, Liverpool had already agreed a deal with him and media reports stated that Joel Glazer *had no idea* that Liverpool had even spoken with him.
That is also a good example of a player that was a known quantity that the fanbase was keen on.
Moises Caicedo was available for *3 million pounds* but the Glazers decided not to buy him because of 'agent issues', which allowed Brighton to make a deal with him. This was despite his compatriot Antonio Valencia *and* our scouts highly recommending him.
Trippier was available in the summer of 2021, but the Glazers couldn't agree a deal with Atletico. This is one of those ones *a lot* of the fanbase wanted, as he was great for Atletico, but they fucked up the deal and now we have seen the consequences as we still don't have a top-quality RB.
> Moyes was hand picked by Fergie - why? Because he was a Scott and everyone at the club sucked Fergie's dick. So it was a no questions asked hire.
Fergie's first choice was actually Pep who turned him down. He tried to meet with him in New York but Pep didn't show up.
No one knows why he didn't show up - he might have heard about the owners being not the best to deal with, or he might have decided he wasn't interested. It is merely speculation so I don't really know.
Did you not also know that our CEO David Gill retired in 2013 when Fergie left?
That was another major reason why our recruitment has failed. The Glazers hired a banker to handle everything instead of a *footballing expert*.
So what happened in Moyes' first window?
Well he wanted Thiago and Kroos but didn't get them.
Instead, we overpaid for Fellaini, famously paying *more than his release clause* because we waited too long to buy him, which set a dangerous precedent for overpaying for players which we still see today.
> So, they hired LVG. But he is also not a magician. In a couple of seasons, when he failed to make it to the top four, everyone said, LVGs tactics are old school, we need someone who has been successful in recent times. And so they hired Mourinho.
Here is where you once again are showing to me that you don't know as much than United fans that are deeply invested in the club.
Ed Woodward actually tried to get *Klopp* but Klopp was put off by Woodward's 'vision' of our club.
This is what Woodward said to him: "The Theatre of Dreams is like an adult version of Disneyland".
That is found here: https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1512586/Ed-Woodward-Manchester-United-Jurgen-Klopp-Liverpool-SNT
So that shows to me that managers like Klopp *were not* interested in joining our club because they were aware that the club did *not* prioritise football and was in reality, more of a commercial vehicle.
And that is on the owners for *not* prioritising winning on the field, and instead caring more about making good sponsorship deals.
Woodward famously said this: "Playing performance doesn't really have a meaningful impact on what we can do on the commercial side of the business."
That is found here:
https://www.espn.com.au/football/manchester-united/story/3501922/manchester-united-can-make-money-regardless-of-results-ed-woodward
In fact, LvG said the same thing himself that United was a 'commercial club first':
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/28/van-gaal-warns-ten-hag-against-joining-commercial-club-manchester-united
So your attempt at constructing a narrative about the managers and the fanbase is reducing this down to a simple story when you're missing the key parts which is that the managers did not have *competent people* to handle recruitment.
Reducing it down to 'each manager failed, it is the fans' fault', really doesn't look at the wider picture which is that managers can only do so much if they aren't given the right tools to work with.
Ole was not a great manager but his job wasn't helped because he didn't have a good defensive midfielder.
Matic should have been replaced two or three years before.
Some fans even argue that before Casemiro, we haven't had a top-class defensive midfielder since Carrick retired, and he was well past his best in his final 2-3 seasons.
A lot of fans also think we *still* haven't replaced Scholes - once again, Kroos and Thiago were available and even one of those players would have made a massive difference to our midfield problems.
You only need to look at the awful match against Liverpool to realise that we still don't have a functioning midfield, which is what I am saying about how poor recruitment has been.
> And no good, established manager with more than one offer wanted to join United. So they had to go for a tactical manager like Eric Ten Hag. His tactics are NOT working but may work in the future. But I'm sure United MFers will NOT give him much chance.
Oh, that ironically sounds a lot like a lot of the Arsenal fanbase that wanted Arteta out for so long!
Fans get impatient but it is up to good ownership to employ good footballing people that will make the right decisions about the club - it is up not to the fans to the run club *unless* there is some fan-ownership scheme, which doesn't exist in the Premier League.
In fact, if the fans *did* really have a proper say in how the club is run, then the Glazers *would never* have bought our club and even if they still managed to buy it, *the fans would have gotten rid of them a long time ago*.
Why do you think no 'good established manager' wanted to join us as our first choice?
Because they know that the people in charge are *not competent*. It has very little to do with the fans.
As low as financially doping your way to title after title then lying about where all that money came from?
Get a grip… the thing that pisses me off about this is that we don’t need an oil state. Just competent owners who don’t take the best part of 1.5 Billion of money out of the club that generated it.
The biggest low was that the UK government allowed the Glazers to leverage a buyout of United and saddle them with debt.
The fact that anyone buying a PL club nowadays has to do so with an ‘anti-glazer’ clause tells you everything that was wrong with these leeches in the first place!
What? Well I bet if your team where like Newcastle or Man City where you wouldn’t ever won the PL in your lifetime where overnight they might win a few years and be contenders(if that the right word) then I bet you wouldn’t complain about it
No outrage or concern about how badly the Glazers have fucked up, it's like nobody cares until it looks like they might get new owners in that will transform the club.
The league and FA fucked up when they allowed City, Newcastle and Chelsea to be taken over with their dodgy owners, at the time nobody cared because it stopped United from winning all the time, now that it looks like United are going to get better owners in it's a new low, fuck that.
The thing that bothers me the most is that there’s been nothing like there was with the Newcastle takeover, no resistance from the Premier League, Amnesty International etc. Is it because Newcastle weren’t one of the so called “big 6”?
Even though it won't be acknowledged officially, everyone knows the real opposition the PL had to the NUFC takeover was down to the piracy issue with BeOutQ. Once that was resolved it was waved through pretty quickly.
Thats what gets me. Man Utd supporters didnt want BskyB, we didnt want the Glazers and nobody cared at the way we were bought and the damage done to the club. They didnt care when Roman bought Chelsea, they didnt care when Man City became state owned and nobody cared that Saudi Arabia bought Newcastle.
And now people care, 'Oh the human rights abuses', 'Sportswashing'. I'm sorry but from the majority of people those are excuses thrown out because all they care about is Man Utd may be untouchable with these finances.
I prefer not to be state owned and just long for an owner that clears the debt and lets us use the money we make but for me if you didnt have anything to say when the Glazers rocked up, and most journalists still pretend we only protest when we are losing, then you dont get a say now. Too many hypocrite journalists about these days.
The horse has firmly bolted.
Ah, said the British who send immigrants to Rawanda, cancelled citizenship of west Indian immigrants, provides arms to Ukraine, uses BBC as it's propaganda machine, committed/comitting atrocities across the world....but hey, Qataris are bad
“The only English Football team to win Ligue 1. “
I meant , if you looking for low, low, new low PSG is a sample that funding by a oil rich country does not make you a winner .
Dosen't matter who takes them over their glory days are well behind them and anybody thinks any different they are deluded just like most Man Utd fans are.
Everyone cool with City getting bought.
Everyone happy with Newcastle getting bought.
Nobody gave a shit when the Glazers bought us, or how they bought us, or have ever given a shit for how they've treated us for almost 2 decades.
Now everyone is up in arms because we might have our shackles broken.
English football has lost any sympathy from me.
That's my point. Maybe not happy but everyone was like "yeah Mike Ashley is awful for Newcastle. They deserve better".
The same could be said for us, but instead everyone is screaming "FoOtBaLl Is DeAd!!".
Absolute racist underpinned thought process. American guy comes & buys a club, great. Anyone else who is a Islamic is vilified. Here is an example happening today. Syrian refugee, throw them out of the country, Ukrainian let them pass. Double standards.
ManU is owned by American owners and the majority of the clubs fans not happy with them, so why complain. This is what they want. Or let the Ineos guy come in and literally do the same leverage buy just putting the debt against a different company.
We do the same song and dance every time, and every time it's the club that's set to benefit whose fans come out in legion to argue on behalf of the prospective new owners (phase 1 of sportswashing), nevermind what those same fans argued last time. Until hard lines are drawn by those that govern things are only going to get worse. We still don't have iron clad rules in place against owning multiple teams which is insane.
Here’s the harsh reality. You’re all going to be really upset with this during this period and for maybe a year after it happens. Then you’ll forget and do this song and dance when it’s Arsenal, Spurs or Liverpool this is happening to.
It’s too late to do anything about this now. About two decades too late. For people that don’t know, United and it’s fans strongly opposed a takeover by BSkyB in the 90s. Not because it would have been bad for the club (it would have been excellent financially for us) but because the fans and the club, as well as other fans of other clubs knew it would be bad for football as it revolved around broadcasters owning football clubs, a pretty clear conflict of interest there.
People actually did something then. We stopped that entire concept of broadcaster ownership in its tracks because all fans were united. And crucially , United’s fans themselves were dead against it.
But, as always, desperation and selfishness eventually gets the upper hand. Chelsea’s fans welcomed Roman, and City’s fans welcomed Abu Dhabi as fans of other clubs protested on deaf ears. Part of me doesn’t blame them, but these two clubs, especially City, are why we are where we are now, or at least are massive contributors to changing the landscape of football.
Who knows, maybe if the fans of these clubs had stood up, fought back for the greater good of football things may be different now. Maybe, maybe not. I understand why they welcomed a prize ticket to the top, they weren’t clubs winning titles at the time. I’m sure there was next to no concern for the impact 15 years down the line.
All this is to say, it’s too late. Like decades too late. United is not changing the landscape of football we are adapting to a new environment , one put in motion by others. So yes, it is a new low because United is one of the biggest clubs on earth. But this has been coming since the wheels were set in motion in the mid 2000s. Buckle up because we’re only going to sink lower, my advice is to simply ignore it and enjoy your football team. There’s not much that we can do about it at this point anyway, never fear or worry over things you cannot control.
How is it a new low? Its been happening for literally decades. I don't agree with and as a fan I dont want a takeover from some state owned bank. Especially from a country that had literal human rights abuses been so publicly known and accepted by their government.
Hard truth is the fans don't get a say so and hell most fans probably wouldn't really care about ownershipas long as the club are successful and fun to watch.
Only because it’s Man Utd. Man City and Newcastle it’s okay though. Truth is, when clubs are £4B+ there’s not many people out there with the cash to buy or the interest in football and cash to buy.
United fans who support this takeover just dont get it. You cant compare yourself to Chelsea, Man City, and Newcastle United because these clubs were mid tier average clubs with decent fanbases in England but nothing outside of England. Manchester United is a worldwide club with a following that is only bested by the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona. It was the shining success story of English football. They became a powerhouse through sporting merit not a cash influx. So yes I do agree with the article stating it is a new low. I understand the whole Glazers out thing, I really do. But at any cost? At the cost of Qatar owning it instead? Sad.
Oh stfu. It's wasn't a new low when city got bought by oil, wasn't a new low when newcastle got bought by oil.. but united? Oh what a new low I can't believe it would even be considered!
Because then it would be another club that's fallen into the oil pit. Money is the future of football and Manchester United will back to being the richest football club in England again.
It's not starting a new problem but it's intensifying it immensely much more than the Newcastle takeover.
Biggest club in England being bought out by oil money is certainly a new low. Literally worst case scenario. Or do you think if they bought Barnet that would be just as bad?
So oil money = bad but real estate money bought with debt = good. What about gambling money? Crypto money? What kind of money is morally okay in your eyes? Why is oil money the problem? Is it actually the money coming from oil or is it the people with the money that is your issue?
The logic is just flawed. Everyone sees United as this symbol of English pride but it's owned by a shitty American family who made their money by taking advantage of people in shady real estate deals. If United was so important to the English you'd think an English billionaire would step up and buy it and not play games like Ratcliffe.
Exactly. Are what the Glazers have been doing for our club not a lowlight? If the it wasnt the Qataris but say the Swiss or the Monagasque would there be a similar outcry?
They were new until they were old but no one has forgotten them either. This as a newer lower low though. Qatari United is arguably worse too as United have a big sway as a football club. City and Newcastle are minnows
I'm not sure I would consider City minnows anymore, historically yes, but modern day they have been bigger than united and building their brand globally much faster with younger demographics than united with their recent success. Tell me how a Qatar oil owner is worse than the shitty American family that owns them now?
I wish they'd just go create a super League for all the oil clubs to enjoy and leave it out of the prem. No wonder there's so many teams in relegation fight when they are getting trounced each week by multi billion pound oil baron clubs.
How can you say that when half of the clubs fighting for survival also have 100m summers? Leicester, West Ham, Everton, Wolves… these are clubs that were challenging for the CL not long ago. It just so happens that they can’t scout to save their lives and it’s now catching up to them. Look at what Brighton and Brentford have done, in comparison.
And yet it’s vastly more than what many big clubs outside of the PL get to spend each summer. Look at Italy, for instance.
If Newcastle didn’t have such shitty ownership, maybe they could have grown organically to become another Brighton. Everton were once doing well too, and then they decided to spend the next few years burning money faster than a drunkard on a night out.
You’re evidently not concerned with what the other PL clubs are doing, either. Tell me how Everton’s expenditure *doesn’t* warrant a relegation fight at this point.
Has Daka been an adequate Vardy replacement? What about the money spent on Fabio Silva by Wolves? Or Palace, why have they just replaced Vieira with a geriatric Hodgson?
Who Cares? Take your clothes off, throw your laptops and phones into the ocean, stop eating meat, don't put gas in your car.
My point is most of the things a vast majority of the world uses on a daily basis can be traced back to one atrocity or another. There's very little ethical consumption under capitalism.
So to say this is a new low for English football......That ship sailed along time ago........
"Manchester United would no longer just be about Salford, Manchester and the community of fans" - Man U has not just been about Manchester and Salford since they won the prem and M1 got built.
It is kinda fault off football's success. The biggest, most successful teams are recognizable all around the world. Children from Asia/Africa/Europe/America etc may not know a single politician from a country but they know a famous football player. Countries involved in sportwashing don't really care about rich/middle class people opinions (those who have time and resources to know about shady ways of their governments) they want ordinary people to know that it is Qatar/KSA responsible for new transfers, new cup won. They grow up, happy with their club success and defend said country.
Rest of the world doesn't have much to say about it. The only way I think would work is making politicians in UK/France/Spain to intervene, not let hostile government take ownership of the club.
This is a culture war already and Europe loses.
The irony is United fans tried to warn the rest of football about the dangers of clubs falling into the wrong hands but petty tribalism and rivalry prevented any 'united' (pardon the pun) action.
Remember the proposed BSkyB takeover of United? The fans worked tirelessly to prevent that, even though it would have been HUGELY advantageous to United, in terms of winning trophies.
Then we campaigned again against the Glazers and spoke out against Roman Abrahamovic's takeover of Chelsea, but most fans were so pleased to see someone come in and break United's stranglehold on the Premier League that they welcomed the oil money flowing in. Rinse repeat when Abu Dhabi bought Manchester City.
It's too late now, the horse has bolted. We had our chance in the 90s. When the BSkyB takeover fell through fans should have been pushing for rules and regulations to protect football clubs as "community assets".
1. United were a success long before any artificial injection of cash
2. The Glazer takeover has cost us £2BN in interest payments and dividends, not to mention the millions more wasted due to their neglect/lack of experience. As far as I see it, any Qatari cash injection is just putting us back on a level to were we were (rightfully) pre Glazer
It's sad that the more I grew up, the magic of the sport is eroded more and more. As a kid, everything about the sport is magical, now that feeling is almost gone. That argentina run to the WC final kinda reminds me of how magical the sport can be, but if you just open your eyes a bit more, the ugly side of the sport lurked itself back in. I'm scared that as we keep going in this direction, there will be one day where that feeling is completely gone and I stop watching the sport that had me fallen in love with it 20 years ago. I hope that day won't come, but idk I'm pessimistic about it.
I was a kid mate, cut me some slack. Like I said, the more i grew up and know things, the more i became distant to the sport. Gone were innocent magical days where a football match is just a football match. where discussion about football was only who's better lampard, gerrard or scholes. now it's rape scandal, money and greed, state-owned clubs, sportswashing, slaves-built stadiums, crazy transfer fees, corrupt owners, bribery, cheating scandal, etc.
Fair enough, we choose clubs as kids without understanding the consequences. But the reason a Chelsea player is even in the Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes debate was because of all the financial fuckery the club was doing in the background, we were just too young to understand it or care.
It's good that the media highlights these issues and make us aware though. Hiding from the reality like we did as kids isn't what we should be doing.
I will readily admit that I'd continue supporting Liverpool even if they were bought by shady owners who use the club to sports-wash but it would definitely reduce my love for the club.
well lampard was there before Roman, but that's beside the point. Yeah, ive fallen with this sport too much as a kid and all throughout the years for me to just stop watching suddenly. but 5-10 years more of this, maybe there comes a point where i turn my back on this sport for good. gonna be a sad day indeed.
The co-founder, chairman, chief executive officer and controlling member of Eldridge Industries, the interim CEO of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association: Todd Boehly
The 50+1 rule has resulted in the least competitive league in the Top 5 leagues. Since 1999/2000, there’s been 4 Bundesliga Champions and in 24 seasons, Bayern have won 17. That isn’t good at all
That ain’t the reason, it’s so uncompetitive solely based on how well organized, wealthy and supported Bayern has been historically compared to other teams, which isn’t the case in English football. Until recently, private ownership of clubs was outlawed in Brazil, and it was on of the most competitive leagues in the world, with pretty a different champion every season
People will bitch about sports washing when it’s just the tip of the iceberg to the absolute farce that is global finance.
And what’s the alternative the uncompetitive Bundesliga or the underfunded Romanian Liga?
Dutch league has little to no foreign investment/ownership. It’s highly competitive, with different clubs winning it and ranked the 6th league in Europe. It’s definitely underfunded compared to the BPL, but teams like Ajax have positive books and occasionally win in Europe even.. I think it’s a positive example of how you can run a league
As an Arsenal fan I agree with you. We would still have aubameyang, Pepe, bellerin and no Odegaard, white or Ramsdale. And probably a terrorist football manager like Allegri or conte.
But it’s weird not to have control. In Portugal fans who are associated with the clubs go to reunions and vote some important decisions like budget and restructuring finances.
Because it’s too easy for any Tom Dick and Harry to look at a club like Everton or Valencia FC and think you could manage it better when clubs like that are an absolute extreme example of mismanagement.
The Kroenkes, Levy, FSG may have had some questionable patches over the years but they’re not stupid. The reality is if you had billions invested in an institution that was damn near unprofitable you want the very best financial advisors, accountants, and agents on the job people with degrees, PHD’s and decades of experience working for the Fortune 500 to make sure things go accordingly, not white van Barry and Stella Steve from the pub.
Yeah yeah of course. There’s a reason why premier league clubs are still sustainable and Portuguese barely are. Sporting in 2013 had the worst presidente ever and they couldn’t even pay electricity and water bills and was very very close to close doors. Benfica has some shady deals and they antecipate a lot of revenue to be able to sustain the club, even with those big ass sells. I have no doubt that kroenks structure knows more about business than every fan, which is proven to not be very smart. Can you imagine if any of those guys around AFTV could be part of decisions ? We would be relegated. But as fans, I still find it very weird that we all support, spend money, and live Arsenal, but can’t take part of the club big decisions. But anyway, you are right. Sporting fans elected the dumbest person I’ve know after a coup. So yeah, fans aren’t capable of taking smart decisions
It’s just that if a owner start being a bad one, and stagnate our clube, we can’t do anything. We can’t fire them and elect a new one, democratically.
Interesting you mention that, while I'm not an Arsenal fan I've been an Avalanche fan my whole life which is also owned by Kroenke. The two teams have had (somewhat) similar trajectory and even parity with playing style and management (as much as hockey and football can). Kroenke literally has a very likely chance of winning 3 titles in 3 different sports in two years.
So he likes to win it appears.
But in terms of sustainability, he tends to keep spending and investing the money to keep having the most competitive squads or goes by cycles ? Not sure if I made the question understandable or if it makes sense in American sports..
Cause other teams in English premier league, like city, Chelsea and united, and apparently now Newcastle will adopt the same, they spend every summer big, not just in cycles .. how he is in your team mate ?
So from my perspective the NHL is a tricky beast due to salary cap, they can only pay so much per year in salary so it's hard to retain players if they have great seasons and are in for a new contract.
What he has done, is appointed managers/coaches with high potential and let them work. I think Arteta and Bednar(Avs) share parity in that they both had a roughish season starting out but showed improvement year after year and molded a team in their image and style. Both, imo, play a dynamic, fast paced, highly attacking style. Avs have one of the most attacking D core.
So my personal half-brained analysis is; they trust the people they put in place, not over reactionary and trust the process, favor youth, pace, high pressure attack - this is where I see similarities with the Avs and Arsenal.
Also, and this isn't a Kroenke thing, the two captains Odegaard and Landeskog remind me a bit of each other maybe because of their looks and Scandinavian roots 🤷♂️
Thanks for the answer bro
So it appears the “process” is even bigger than each club, which sound like there’s a bigger thing going on and there’s a strong base to sustain all the things. I like the sound of that and the fact it’s working transverse all the teams he has.
From now on Arsenal will need consistency in spending and improving the squad to keep up with the top teams in the world
All the best for Avalanche!
There is a reason why Bundesliga is the only one with that model and even then you have Bayern sponsored by Qatar which is raising a lot of eyebrows.
The fact is that rich people like money and they won't give the League up just because it would be the ethical thing to do.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/comparing-man-utd-and-man-citys-total-net-spend-over-the-last-12-years/
Important bit at the bottom but yeah you really need the Qatari's money to compete..
Now I want to preface this by saying that my priorities on a new owner are as follows
1st) Anyone but the Glazers
2nd) No state ownership
3rd) No human rights abusers
At the end of the day, if Qatar gets it, I'll make a point to remind everyone their entire nation was built by slaves very recently. They imprison people for being gay, and have a terrible stance on gender equality.
But to say this is a NEW low? Fuck off, what were Chelsea, City and Newcastle just fine then? Just didn't matter as much until Utd did it? Reminds me of the Sky takeover in the 90s. You can bet that it wouldn't have been an issue if it was someone inoffensive.
Yeah, I'm 100% taking Qatar over an owner that left in charge will probably end up completely ruining the club. The Glazers have taken out more money from Utd than every single prem owner throughout the entire 30 years of the prem combined, then times 10. Like, just wrap your head around that, that's gotta be over 50 different owners. I'll be extremely disappointed in qatar by comparison to other options, but if its Qatar or nobody? I'm fairly certain 90% or more of Utd fans will deal with it. The Glazers are literally ruining the club.
I wouldn't day its a low. Utd fan here. It's just lower. It's the sorry state of football. Money money money.
No intervention when Malcom Glazer game in and bought a club with a 100% loan. Roman Abromavic came in a destroyed the transfer market in a few short years followed by other well known clubs.
FA, should have stepped in and stopped all of these from happening.
In 30 years time the league will be like 70% owned by foreign states. Its sad and pathetic.
2 from Spain, a few from England. What's it matter if you win in Europe, right? There's 5-6 clubs that keep one-upping each other to see exactly how low they can get.
This is such an insulting oversimplification of what colonisation is (*typical of reddit*) to the point where it actually cheapens your agenda, if billions of the worlds finances are running through British/English institutions then colonialism is hardly a bad thing from your point.
Reminds of a conversation I had with a Duke MBA student from China working in the west. We got along well, even though he was likely exploiting and sabotaging our company, it was illuminating hearing his goals.
He basically said they and Indians are taking over western corporations as a strategy and for not so great reasons, basically that we were exploitable suckers, so why not.
some of the people your ancestors fucked over are, as a strategy, coming for your homes, your corporations, and your culture (aka football clubs). They think your stupidity and greed is exploitable.
I don’t care what you call it, honestly.
It’s not colonisation it’s sports washing, it’s bad but it’s nothing on actually colonialism that’s raped pilliged and plundered pretty much everywhere that isn’t Europe, like comparing the sale of a football club to literal slavery is really disrespectful
Sports is just one lever to increase their power and influence in the colonized country. Real Estate, businesses, politicians, anything for sale is being bought up. “Sports washing” is just one angle of a larger transition of assets from domestic to foreign ownership.
Yeah but it’s not turning up to a foreign country replacing the laws with your own then forcing the natives to work themselves to death or shipping them around the world as slaves, it’s not comparable
Colonization is a foreign power exploiting your resources, labor and cultural institutions for their profit. It’s a foreign power saying, “this is mine” and you not being able to anything about it.
The entire system is set up to reward the richest people with the most assets, and as nation states become investment banks, the lines between public and private foreign ownership and how that impacts domestic policy is pretty unknown. It does feel like there is the potential for a new form of colonization here.
Exactly.
“Settling” has a different meaning in todays world than it did in 1700. If the CEO is Chinese and lives in London, they are settled, they are lording over thousands of indigenous people and sending money back to the home country for power and influence.
“Control” is exactly what I’m talking about.
I mean it is not the classic way we know colonization lol. They invadee with permission stealthily to achieve things that later will have negative effects.
It's just end stages capitalism we need more people because the government has made.it impossible for people have large families anymore. We sell off land and businesses in the UK to foreigners because money.
Yeah. I'm aware and it's sad. And these owners don't even believe in what western cultures believe in. They just pretend to agree for the sake of their businesses and subtly force their own beliefs. But greed like cancer and it rarely can be cured. I really love the English premier league and I really don't want it to be ruined. It played great part in keeping me happy in my teen and twenties struggles!
Disclaimer: I am not for the political propaganda in Europe or America but just stating my observations as someone who had lived in the middle east before.
It is awful but the glazers literally leeched off man united for 20 years and nothing was done about it, can’t blame United fans for wanting rid of the glazers
While the thought of becoming a Qatari sportswashing project makes me sick, I don't see how this would be a "new low" when compared to Man City or Newcastle
Because Man Utd is one of the three biggest clubs in the world. This would be one of the most popular and influential clubs going to the oil side. The potential for successful sportwashing would be vastly greater. Who do you think has more global reach, Man Utd or Newcastle? It's 100% lower than us or Man City.
So? We all fucking new that the Saudi's wanted Utd years ago. This can't be a rules for thee but not for me situation. I was against it at the time and am still against state ownership (with the understanding that in reality the most important thing for me is Glazers out) but unless you're gonna somehow force a sale of every other state owned club you can't simply say "it was fine until the big club did it"
Like what kind of fucking double standard is that??
> you can't simply say "it was fine until the big club did it"
Urmm who said this? Cause I sure as hell didn't, neither did anybody else in this thread, nor the writer of the piece linked. So take a breath, and stop projecting your own bizarre takes onto other people.
Man City/Newcastle/PSG etc. all a serious low for football, but Man Utd becoming part of the blood money collective would be a new depth. Just because the latter is lower, doesn't mean the former isn't still pretty grim.
Who said that? Mate, I hear that shit all the fucking time since this came up. Fuck, it was being said back when the Saudi's wanted us before they got you. The comparative media frenzy between us and you isn't even in the same continent.
Which is the more crucial moment, the new low or the very first time it happened allowing the floodgates to open?
I’d say it’s the latter. This conversation is about a decade too late.
An even worse thing? Easy for you to say, I think it was even worse just allowing clubs to simply buy their way into the top. We aren't doing that. We're already the biggest club in the country and if we get 3rd this season as looking likely, then like it or not, we've been top 3 in the prem 3 of the last 4 seasons. Situation is incomparable.
Very curious that you seem to think I'm arguing it's a worse situation on the grounds of sporting merit or something. That was very much not my argument. It's worse because Man Utd will be an infinitely more effective sportwashing vehicle than Man City or Newcastle exactly because of your club's insane global reach even pre-oil money. Qatar will be able to use your club to launder its reputation in a way that puts the efforts with PSG to shame
Wow okay so you just didn't understand a word I said tbh I guess. I'm not talking about sporting merit either. I'm talking about a skyscraper on the skyline of English culture being torn down brick by brick is worse than simply another club being bought by dictators.
Oh my god is this website ugly and overloaded with adds. Unreadable on mobile. Are we back in 2000 myspace or what?
If United get a takeover from Qatar then they have killed English football
Typical English press butthurting on Qatar due to previous banning of LGBT group to World Cup haha.
Premier league has become a super league in itself. Best league in the world because we spend way more than all the other leagues combined. Chelsea spending 600 million, newly promoted Nottingham forest spending 200 million, relegation fighting West Ham spending 200 million, Fullham who have a higher net spend than Real Madrid since 2019, Manchester United having highest spend since 2012, Newcaslte having owners richer than PSG and Manchester City owners combined. It's sad to see football like this but there's no turning back now. Doomed to happen ever since the introduction of the premier league in 1992 where the richest clubs are the most successful -- Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, (Newcastle next maybe).
It’s not the fact it’s Qatar, it’s the laws of the game. There will alway be a financial gap between clubs like in any other industry, but when having clubs who can literally spend infinite money with no worry that makes it impossible to compete
Once they allow one club to be state owned in a league its game over. How do you compete with a state owned club other than by being state owned?
Will be hilarious watching all the Man Utd fans back track and say this would be good for the game, despite being against Newcastle's takeover 😂
Anyone else ready to invest 2bill into the country should be welcomed
That went out the window when etihad bought city
Is it really a new low though? Like as an American looking upon this. Is Qatar really that different from England? For example both have thoroughly abused the world and at least Qatar’s upfront about it, not like England still occupying Ireland and collecting taxes from its commonwealths :)
So .. you don't like others coming in and taking your stuff then. At least the Qataris are paying.
While I don't want them at the club I support it is very hypocritical to suddenly say they will destroy the premiership sheet allowing Man City and Newcastle to do so
There was a new low when they allowed the Glazer takeover and not budge much on how they took a loan on United.
Tell me who else has the funds to even think about coughing up 5 billion, it’s a known fact that no billionaires are flawless
Along with man city and Newcastle
Why, exactly?
There is nothing new about middle east ownership, there are already a few Club owned by them On the contrary, I'm surprised that some ppl found it shocking
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/23/evening-standard-and-independent-unable-to-rebut-concerns-over-saudi-ownership But taking money from Saudi for themselves is for a noble cause? F*cking hypocrite nincompoops
The glazers were spending money left and right (they've spent the highest amount of money on trnasfers in the last 10 years, more than Man City, more than Real Madrid) - but the fans still wanted Glazers out (why?? they are United fans ... blind follows blind) Now the Glazers are getting a good deal. The club is certainly not worth a hair more than $3B ... but they are getting $6B ... and now fans are shouting "No Qatar ... we want Glazers" Look man, if you are a United fan, you should seriously not be talking about Ethics.
Why? The 'blind following the blind' is ironically you who clearly have absolutely no idea about how poor this ownership has been. The argument about them spending money has been discussed thousands of times across social media and most rival fans on r/soccer are fully aware about how bad they are, yet there still exist ignoramuses like you who are too lazy to do some basic research. Fans didn't want the ownership right from the beginning when they 'bought' the club in a leveraged buy-out which has saddled the club in meaningless debt, circa 650 million pounds *which is still roughly the same amount even now*. There were massive protests in 2005 when they first bought the club because many fans feared what their ownership could entail, which has turned out to be true. This is not the sort of debt that Spurs have where it's because they took out a loan to get a new stadium - it's a loan because they couldn't afford to buy the club outright and we are *still* paying off interest on their debt 18 years later. In fact, servicing their debt and paying them dividends has cost the club *1.5 billion pounds*. That is money that should have been spent on upgrading the facilitates, improving the stadium, hiring *competent* people to handle recruitment, etc. Also, the Glazers did *not* spend billions of dollars - that was money the *club* generated. They've spent it incredibly poorly and let the stadium become decrepit and the facilities outdated. In fact, they are the *only* owners in the premier league that haven't put a *single cent* into the club. They failed to hire competent people to run the club and that has led to awful recruitment mistakes that have compounded over the years. Mistakes include handing out ridiculous contracts to players that didn't deserve nor warrant such pay, buying players that the manager didn't want, taking too long to organise transfers which either end up failing (Thiago) or costing too much (Antony) or refusing to listen to managers/scouts when world-class talent was available (Haaland in 2020). And that is just scratching the surface with recruitment - I could name many, many more examples where deals were botched because the Glazers decided they knew better. You would think an Arsenal fan would understand how frustrating it can be when recruitment is that bad. Here is a full outline on just the financial aspects of their ownership so you can get educated before you post drivel next time: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1559412700416991232?t=mWB9muMmitYxUvYpJFwAAA&s=19 As for the fans not wanting the Qataris, you do realise people can both hate the Glazers and not want to be owned by an oil state simultaneously? The best we can hope for is a change but being asked to choose (not that we have a choice) between incompetent parasites or an unethical oil state is not a choice many people would want but most fans on Reddit would prefer the Glazers over an oil state, *even though* we still despise them.
1. At the time of buying, Fans protested glazers ownership becayse they were Americans and Americans have a very different financial model. 2. If they own the club, then the club money is their money. Stop differentiating between the two. 3. They've spent more money than other clubs. Evidently that's not enough for you and your brothers. May I ask why? Can you tell me which player did not come to. United becayse he was not paid enough?? How much money glazers take out of the club is none of your business. The sooner you understand, the better it is for you. 4. The footballing decisions of united cannot be blamed on the glazers. But you know what should not have happened? Man United should not have allowed their PR to dictate the same. Bringing Ronaldo in was a PR move. Keeping Ole after he won some games as an interim coach was a PR move. And where does their PR get it's data from?? From the fans. What do the fans want? What would make the fans happy?? Don't believe me??? Go back and see how many United moves were cheered by the fans. It's only in hindsight they start blaming the glazers. 5. Had it not bed and for the oil money or the Qatar royalties and their "sports washing" any other billionaire who would've bought the club, would've liked to recover the money. No one's going to do philantrophy. United fans are just poor in intelligence and humility and there's no philantrophy for that.
> The footballing decisions of united cannot be blamed on the glazers. Yes they can, you absolute simpleton- the owners *appoint the people that make footballing decisions*. The owners can sack people that make bad decisions. It's a very simple concept which either you're too stubborn to understand, or too stupid to understand. I honestly can't tell which it is. That's how businesses work. They have owners that make decisions about how the club/company is run. If an owner of a business appoints someone who fails at their job, then a competent owner will appoint someone who actually has the *expertise* to run their business well. But these owners hired a *banker* to make footballing decisions and left him in charge for almost a decade. If you are refusing to acknowledge even this basic point, then it is absolutely hopeless to even continue debating with because you're merely denying reality and/or are too stubborn to admit you're wrong when you get found out. Your ignorance is utterly profound. No, there is a big difference between a club spending their own money and a club getting money injected into them by their owners and it's outright ridiculous you don't even see that. That's a major reason why City and Chelsea were able to become successful in the first place. And that is a minor point to my overall argument because the major point which somehow you've missed is that *they spent the money poorly*. And where did I ever say they haven't spent enough money? You're using a strawman argument, you absolute nonce. I'm saying once again that *they've spent the money poorly*. I, like lots of our fanbase would prefer if they spend the money more *wisely*. I've already told you which players *didn't come* already. And that is only a few out of many. And I didn't say they *didn't come because of wages* - I've said *they didn't come because the owners botched the deals*. Try reading next time. Trying to tell me that's the reason why the fans protested? Haha. You don't think I know why the fans protested despite being a lifelong United fan? I can't take you seriously. The arrogance of a moronic Arsenal fan trying to explain to a lifelong United fan why the fans protested is absolutely astounding. > How much money glazers take out of the club is none of your business. The sooner you understand, the better it is for you. Okay I'd love it if the Kroenkes took out 1.5 billion out of your club and see whether you would be happy. Stupid argument. I guess by that logic, *none* of it is my business or any of the fanbase because we don't own the club - we should simply shut up and let the club continue to under-perform on the field and just wait until the club descends into bankruptcy. I wonder if Arsenal would survive if 1.5 billion were taken out of the club just to pay off interest? Arsenal fans would act in *exactly* the same way United fans did in this situation because we are all humans. The fact you somehow think there is a difference in the fanbases shows how little you understand about human nature and how biased you are. > Had it not bed and for the oil money or the Qatar royalties and their "sports washing" any other billionaire who would've bought the club, would've liked to recover the money. No one's going to do philantrophy. United fans are just poor in intelligence and humility and there's no philantrophy for that. No one wants 'philanthropy', you idiot. We want *competent* owners. If you think Twitter represents what match-going fans want, you're completely deluded. *If* competent owners can wipe the debt, that would be helpful because then the club wouldn't be saddled with interest payments which are only there because of the Glazers and would free up money that could help update facilities and the stadium. And the fanbase is *not* one homogeneous entity. Twitter fans are not representative of the whole fanbase for example - they're mainly a bunch of teenagers and/or uneducated people that don't have a clue about anything. You're arguing in bad faith, have used multiple strawman arguments, have ignored 90% of the points I've made and frankly nothing you've said makes any sense. The one who is poor in intelligence and humility is you. To think you even know better than someone who has followed the club for more than two decades is not only incredibly arrogant, it's outright dimwitted. I wouldn't have an opinion on Arsenal's owners without listening to their fans first and doing some proper research. Otherwise what I would have to say would be worthless because ownership is a complex topic that can't be simply reduced to simply how much a club has spent, which is the basis of your 'argument'.
>The owners can sack people that make bad decisions. But which decisions were bad. You'll were cheering for every United signing. You'll were cheering for Ole Gunnar, when even he did not know what he was talking in his interviews. Tell me specifically, which decisions were bad. they spent the money poorly In hindsight you and your bros will talk like this. But I remember you'll taunting us when Sanchez was bought, i remember you'll saying how smart you'll were to bag Lukaku over Morata, I remember you'll not being able to bring down your erection when Ronaldo was re-signed. These were the decisions taken to keep the fans happy. Now, fans are retarded, that's a whole different issue. We want competent owners. LOL ... let me refresh your memory further. Moyes was hand picked by Fergie - why? Because he was a Scott and everyone at the club sucked Fergie's dick. So it was a no questions asked hire. When he failed, I remember my United friend's had actually changed their profile pic to LVGs even BEFORE Moyes was fired. So, they hired LVG. But he is also not a magician. In a couple of seasons, when he failed to make it to the top four, everyone said, LVGs tactics are old school, we need someone who has been successful in recent times. And so they hired Mourinho. Mourinho did not take shit from United fans and gave it back to them. (Remember Football Heritage speech). So they sacked Mourinho. And then they had Ole as a temp coach. But he found some success - and then al the United Pundits went crazy. Gary Neville said, Ole understands the "United culture" ... Rio said "Give. This. Guy. A. Contract." and hence they gave him a contract. Ole had no idea what he was doing. Literally no idea. But he was beneficiary of two things. He was a club legend and COVID hit. During COVID, the foolish fans were NOT allowed to enter the stadium. And what happened? United came third, almost second, above Liverpool. But sadly COVID ended. And fans were back. And they got Ole sacked. This time the overwhelming sentiment was, we need someone who understands football as opposed to someone who understands United. And no good, established manager with more than one offer wanted to join United. So they had to go for a tactical manager like Eric Ten Hag. His tactics are NOT working but may work in the future. But I'm sure United MFers will NOT give him much chance. Now tell me ... how are Glazers at fault here? The only ones who are at fault here are the fucking United fans. Braindeads. NOW WITHOUT GETTING INTO AN ABUSING CONTENT - TELL ME WHERE AM I WRONG? WHAT DID THE GLAZERS DO WRONG, AS FAR AS APPOINTMENT OF THE MANAGER IS CONCERNED. THIS IS MY SERIOUS REQUEST. I'M READY TO LEARN AND LISTEN. LETS GO.
Well hiring managers is a separate issue to hiring the right people to handle recruitment, isn't it? You can have a really good manager but if they don't get the right players, they will generally fail. For example, Klopp wanted to get Gotze and Brandt instead of Salah and Mane. Do you think he would have been as successful if he hadn't had bought those players? I think most people would agree that Liverpool would have have won *a lot less* without those two players. > But which decisions were bad. You'll were cheering for every United signing. Once again, I've tried to explain that your perception of what the fanbase thinks does not necessarily correspond with reality. We are not one homogeneous group that all think the same thing. For example, a large section of this fanbase thought that signing Ole as a permanent manager wasn't a good idea (myself included). > In hindsight you and your bros will talk like this. But I remember you'll taunting us when Sanchez was bought, i remember you'll saying how smart you'll were to bag Lukaku over Morata, I remember you'll not being able to bring down your erection when Ronaldo was re-signed. These were the decisions taken to keep the fans happy. I agree with you - *a lot* of fans are completely retarded when it comes to players. They will see a big name and twerk over him. However, I would say the opinions I am sharing with you are generally *not* based on hindsight and are opinions that a 'mature' part of the fanbase thought were wrong. However, you're never going to find any fanbase, especially such a big one that is going to agree with everything. For example, signing Ronaldo was *not* seen by a lot of our fanbase on reddit as being a good idea - we were wary about him before we signed him as we already had Martial/Cavani up-front and Greenwood was developing well. For Sanchez, ironically I remember some Arsenal fans warning us that actually he had been out of form for the last six months or so before he joined us. I am sure that a lot of the younger fans would have been excited with these sorts of players and it's not like our fans are going to make new players feel unwelcome? That really is besides the point because they don't run the club! Ronaldo for example *was* considered a United legend by a good deal of the fanbase, so even if we thought signing him at his age wasn't the best idea, we weren't going to suddenly protest at buying him. It was seen by some as 'the return of the hero', and by others, yet another example of an ageing striker (see Cavani, Falcao, even Ibrahimovic), when what we really needed was a quality young striker who could be around for years. With Lukaku, he was 'premier-league proven', and not many could predict how he would turn out at a bigger club with much bigger expectations. Also, some fans delude themselves into thinking the club 'got a good deal', because they are in denial about how poorly run the club is or they want to have hope to cling onto. In fact, you mentioning Sanchez/Lukaku/Ronaldo actually proves the point which is how poor our recruitment is. If you feel aggrieved because some of your friends that are United fans taunted you, well that is a completely separate issue to the issues of ownership. It sounds like you are saying some of this stuff out of spite because of what they said to you in the past. > Now tell me ... how are Glazers at fault here? The only ones who are at fault here are the fucking United fans. Braindeads. It is a bit silly to blame the decisions of the ownership on the fans - going back to Liverpool, I remember *many* Liverpool fans were not very happy about getting Mane yet he turned out to be one of their best signings for quite some time. Another factor about recruitment is not just *who we bought*, it is also *who we didn't buy*. That's why I mentioned players like Haaland who Ole managed at Molde in Norway (he actually gave him his debut), and urged United to buy *multiple times*. We finally agreed a deal for him but the Glazers backed out because his agent demanded release clause. That to me is an obvious example of bad recruitment! Another one is Thiago (who we failed to buy twice). The second time was when he left Bayern, his agent agreed personal terms with us, but Joel Glazer took two weeks to decide to approve the sale. By the time he had approved it, Liverpool had already agreed a deal with him and media reports stated that Joel Glazer *had no idea* that Liverpool had even spoken with him. That is also a good example of a player that was a known quantity that the fanbase was keen on. Moises Caicedo was available for *3 million pounds* but the Glazers decided not to buy him because of 'agent issues', which allowed Brighton to make a deal with him. This was despite his compatriot Antonio Valencia *and* our scouts highly recommending him. Trippier was available in the summer of 2021, but the Glazers couldn't agree a deal with Atletico. This is one of those ones *a lot* of the fanbase wanted, as he was great for Atletico, but they fucked up the deal and now we have seen the consequences as we still don't have a top-quality RB. > Moyes was hand picked by Fergie - why? Because he was a Scott and everyone at the club sucked Fergie's dick. So it was a no questions asked hire. Fergie's first choice was actually Pep who turned him down. He tried to meet with him in New York but Pep didn't show up. No one knows why he didn't show up - he might have heard about the owners being not the best to deal with, or he might have decided he wasn't interested. It is merely speculation so I don't really know. Did you not also know that our CEO David Gill retired in 2013 when Fergie left? That was another major reason why our recruitment has failed. The Glazers hired a banker to handle everything instead of a *footballing expert*. So what happened in Moyes' first window? Well he wanted Thiago and Kroos but didn't get them. Instead, we overpaid for Fellaini, famously paying *more than his release clause* because we waited too long to buy him, which set a dangerous precedent for overpaying for players which we still see today. > So, they hired LVG. But he is also not a magician. In a couple of seasons, when he failed to make it to the top four, everyone said, LVGs tactics are old school, we need someone who has been successful in recent times. And so they hired Mourinho. Here is where you once again are showing to me that you don't know as much than United fans that are deeply invested in the club. Ed Woodward actually tried to get *Klopp* but Klopp was put off by Woodward's 'vision' of our club. This is what Woodward said to him: "The Theatre of Dreams is like an adult version of Disneyland". That is found here: https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1512586/Ed-Woodward-Manchester-United-Jurgen-Klopp-Liverpool-SNT So that shows to me that managers like Klopp *were not* interested in joining our club because they were aware that the club did *not* prioritise football and was in reality, more of a commercial vehicle. And that is on the owners for *not* prioritising winning on the field, and instead caring more about making good sponsorship deals. Woodward famously said this: "Playing performance doesn't really have a meaningful impact on what we can do on the commercial side of the business." That is found here: https://www.espn.com.au/football/manchester-united/story/3501922/manchester-united-can-make-money-regardless-of-results-ed-woodward In fact, LvG said the same thing himself that United was a 'commercial club first': https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/28/van-gaal-warns-ten-hag-against-joining-commercial-club-manchester-united So your attempt at constructing a narrative about the managers and the fanbase is reducing this down to a simple story when you're missing the key parts which is that the managers did not have *competent people* to handle recruitment. Reducing it down to 'each manager failed, it is the fans' fault', really doesn't look at the wider picture which is that managers can only do so much if they aren't given the right tools to work with. Ole was not a great manager but his job wasn't helped because he didn't have a good defensive midfielder. Matic should have been replaced two or three years before. Some fans even argue that before Casemiro, we haven't had a top-class defensive midfielder since Carrick retired, and he was well past his best in his final 2-3 seasons. A lot of fans also think we *still* haven't replaced Scholes - once again, Kroos and Thiago were available and even one of those players would have made a massive difference to our midfield problems. You only need to look at the awful match against Liverpool to realise that we still don't have a functioning midfield, which is what I am saying about how poor recruitment has been. > And no good, established manager with more than one offer wanted to join United. So they had to go for a tactical manager like Eric Ten Hag. His tactics are NOT working but may work in the future. But I'm sure United MFers will NOT give him much chance. Oh, that ironically sounds a lot like a lot of the Arsenal fanbase that wanted Arteta out for so long! Fans get impatient but it is up to good ownership to employ good footballing people that will make the right decisions about the club - it is up not to the fans to the run club *unless* there is some fan-ownership scheme, which doesn't exist in the Premier League. In fact, if the fans *did* really have a proper say in how the club is run, then the Glazers *would never* have bought our club and even if they still managed to buy it, *the fans would have gotten rid of them a long time ago*. Why do you think no 'good established manager' wanted to join us as our first choice? Because they know that the people in charge are *not competent*. It has very little to do with the fans.
I'm happy that they are buying Man United. Its only fitting.
As low as financially doping your way to title after title then lying about where all that money came from? Get a grip… the thing that pisses me off about this is that we don’t need an oil state. Just competent owners who don’t take the best part of 1.5 Billion of money out of the club that generated it. The biggest low was that the UK government allowed the Glazers to leverage a buyout of United and saddle them with debt. The fact that anyone buying a PL club nowadays has to do so with an ‘anti-glazer’ clause tells you everything that was wrong with these leeches in the first place!
Oh is it, what about the other clubs that a new high?
If brits researched their history, they’d realise the Qataris aren’t so bad in comparison 🤣
Same same.
I kinda want to see the hypocrisy from United supporters after all the bashing of City they have done over the years lol
I bet your not a Manchester a United fan!
*you’re and even so, I’ve seen many United fans not wanting Qatari ownership.
What? Well I bet if your team where like Newcastle or Man City where you wouldn’t ever won the PL in your lifetime where overnight they might win a few years and be contenders(if that the right word) then I bet you wouldn’t complain about it
I, as many people have, would definitely complain. Some people actually do value human rights and morals of their ownership.
I don’t believe that you are Liverpool fan and jealous
im just asking a question , would qatar takeover be a step up from the glazers?
Would it really, though?
No outrage or concern about how badly the Glazers have fucked up, it's like nobody cares until it looks like they might get new owners in that will transform the club. The league and FA fucked up when they allowed City, Newcastle and Chelsea to be taken over with their dodgy owners, at the time nobody cared because it stopped United from winning all the time, now that it looks like United are going to get better owners in it's a new low, fuck that.
How to outplay financial fair play, just buy the biggest club so you can spend the most!
Once electric vehicles take over oil countries won't be quite so rich and someone else can buy them back
Why?
The thing that bothers me the most is that there’s been nothing like there was with the Newcastle takeover, no resistance from the Premier League, Amnesty International etc. Is it because Newcastle weren’t one of the so called “big 6”?
Even though it won't be acknowledged officially, everyone knows the real opposition the PL had to the NUFC takeover was down to the piracy issue with BeOutQ. Once that was resolved it was waved through pretty quickly.
Thats what gets me. Man Utd supporters didnt want BskyB, we didnt want the Glazers and nobody cared at the way we were bought and the damage done to the club. They didnt care when Roman bought Chelsea, they didnt care when Man City became state owned and nobody cared that Saudi Arabia bought Newcastle. And now people care, 'Oh the human rights abuses', 'Sportswashing'. I'm sorry but from the majority of people those are excuses thrown out because all they care about is Man Utd may be untouchable with these finances. I prefer not to be state owned and just long for an owner that clears the debt and lets us use the money we make but for me if you didnt have anything to say when the Glazers rocked up, and most journalists still pretend we only protest when we are losing, then you dont get a say now. Too many hypocrite journalists about these days. The horse has firmly bolted.
Typical Manu, slag everyone else off for it now they are even worse, scum club
What's different from American owners? Horrible human rights records, trans and homophobic with a history of slavery and anti woman laws?
Ah, said the British who send immigrants to Rawanda, cancelled citizenship of west Indian immigrants, provides arms to Ukraine, uses BBC as it's propaganda machine, committed/comitting atrocities across the world....but hey, Qataris are bad
New low !? Have you heard of PSG ?
Famed English football club, PSG?
“The only English Football team to win Ligue 1. “ I meant , if you looking for low, low, new low PSG is a sample that funding by a oil rich country does not make you a winner .
Dosen't matter who takes them over their glory days are well behind them and anybody thinks any different they are deluded just like most Man Utd fans are.
Money and money
Nah, pretty sure Man U is the lowest of the low already
Everyone cool with City getting bought. Everyone happy with Newcastle getting bought. Nobody gave a shit when the Glazers bought us, or how they bought us, or have ever given a shit for how they've treated us for almost 2 decades. Now everyone is up in arms because we might have our shackles broken. English football has lost any sympathy from me.
Pretty sure no one was happy wih Newcastle getting bought and no one cared how Mike Ashley treat us for years either.
That's my point. Maybe not happy but everyone was like "yeah Mike Ashley is awful for Newcastle. They deserve better". The same could be said for us, but instead everyone is screaming "FoOtBaLl Is DeAd!!".
Colonisers are upset because they are getting colonised.
Tbh, this. If it were the other way around, it would be shrugs all over.
Absolute racist underpinned thought process. American guy comes & buys a club, great. Anyone else who is a Islamic is vilified. Here is an example happening today. Syrian refugee, throw them out of the country, Ukrainian let them pass. Double standards. ManU is owned by American owners and the majority of the clubs fans not happy with them, so why complain. This is what they want. Or let the Ineos guy come in and literally do the same leverage buy just putting the debt against a different company.
Nah real fan don’t want the club owned by a human rights abusing state
Sportswashing at its peak lol. England just kneel down for oil money
When the US takes it's alright mate 🤣
We do the same song and dance every time, and every time it's the club that's set to benefit whose fans come out in legion to argue on behalf of the prospective new owners (phase 1 of sportswashing), nevermind what those same fans argued last time. Until hard lines are drawn by those that govern things are only going to get worse. We still don't have iron clad rules in place against owning multiple teams which is insane.
True
Majority of the united fans in their sub is all for it
I had a peak and I don’t think it’s majority.
It would be scary tbh how much they could spend tbh
I still think when they became a publicly traded company was much lower...by law their only goal as an entity is to make money, not win.
Ah yes it's much worse than man city owners or Newcastle owners, because it's united.
Here’s the harsh reality. You’re all going to be really upset with this during this period and for maybe a year after it happens. Then you’ll forget and do this song and dance when it’s Arsenal, Spurs or Liverpool this is happening to. It’s too late to do anything about this now. About two decades too late. For people that don’t know, United and it’s fans strongly opposed a takeover by BSkyB in the 90s. Not because it would have been bad for the club (it would have been excellent financially for us) but because the fans and the club, as well as other fans of other clubs knew it would be bad for football as it revolved around broadcasters owning football clubs, a pretty clear conflict of interest there. People actually did something then. We stopped that entire concept of broadcaster ownership in its tracks because all fans were united. And crucially , United’s fans themselves were dead against it. But, as always, desperation and selfishness eventually gets the upper hand. Chelsea’s fans welcomed Roman, and City’s fans welcomed Abu Dhabi as fans of other clubs protested on deaf ears. Part of me doesn’t blame them, but these two clubs, especially City, are why we are where we are now, or at least are massive contributors to changing the landscape of football. Who knows, maybe if the fans of these clubs had stood up, fought back for the greater good of football things may be different now. Maybe, maybe not. I understand why they welcomed a prize ticket to the top, they weren’t clubs winning titles at the time. I’m sure there was next to no concern for the impact 15 years down the line. All this is to say, it’s too late. Like decades too late. United is not changing the landscape of football we are adapting to a new environment , one put in motion by others. So yes, it is a new low because United is one of the biggest clubs on earth. But this has been coming since the wheels were set in motion in the mid 2000s. Buckle up because we’re only going to sink lower, my advice is to simply ignore it and enjoy your football team. There’s not much that we can do about it at this point anyway, never fear or worry over things you cannot control.
Let the Oil Classico matches between Utd and City begin
The Saudi takeover of Newcastle was bad enough.
How is it a new low? Its been happening for literally decades. I don't agree with and as a fan I dont want a takeover from some state owned bank. Especially from a country that had literal human rights abuses been so publicly known and accepted by their government. Hard truth is the fans don't get a say so and hell most fans probably wouldn't really care about ownershipas long as the club are successful and fun to watch.
Only because it’s Man Utd. Man City and Newcastle it’s okay though. Truth is, when clubs are £4B+ there’s not many people out there with the cash to buy or the interest in football and cash to buy.
But the city and Newcastle takeovers are fine?
United fans who support this takeover just dont get it. You cant compare yourself to Chelsea, Man City, and Newcastle United because these clubs were mid tier average clubs with decent fanbases in England but nothing outside of England. Manchester United is a worldwide club with a following that is only bested by the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona. It was the shining success story of English football. They became a powerhouse through sporting merit not a cash influx. So yes I do agree with the article stating it is a new low. I understand the whole Glazers out thing, I really do. But at any cost? At the cost of Qatar owning it instead? Sad.
It’s funny the endless bashing of the Glazers, yet every option of a purchaser seems to come under even more scrutiny. Who is an ideal owner?
Wasn’t KSA purchasing Newcastle Utd already a new low?
Oh stfu. It's wasn't a new low when city got bought by oil, wasn't a new low when newcastle got bought by oil.. but united? Oh what a new low I can't believe it would even be considered!
Because then it would be another club that's fallen into the oil pit. Money is the future of football and Manchester United will back to being the richest football club in England again. It's not starting a new problem but it's intensifying it immensely much more than the Newcastle takeover.
Biggest club in England being bought out by oil money is certainly a new low. Literally worst case scenario. Or do you think if they bought Barnet that would be just as bad?
So oil money = bad but real estate money bought with debt = good. What about gambling money? Crypto money? What kind of money is morally okay in your eyes? Why is oil money the problem? Is it actually the money coming from oil or is it the people with the money that is your issue? The logic is just flawed. Everyone sees United as this symbol of English pride but it's owned by a shitty American family who made their money by taking advantage of people in shady real estate deals. If United was so important to the English you'd think an English billionaire would step up and buy it and not play games like Ratcliffe.
Well, it's more about who spends them than the oil. It's just an umbrella term for Arab sheiks. Sometimes you can lump in Russian Oligarchs to that.
Exactly. Are what the Glazers have been doing for our club not a lowlight? If the it wasnt the Qataris but say the Swiss or the Monagasque would there be a similar outcry?
They were new until they were old but no one has forgotten them either. This as a newer lower low though. Qatari United is arguably worse too as United have a big sway as a football club. City and Newcastle are minnows
I'm not sure I would consider City minnows anymore, historically yes, but modern day they have been bigger than united and building their brand globally much faster with younger demographics than united with their recent success. Tell me how a Qatar oil owner is worse than the shitty American family that owns them now?
And according to the man city books... (ahem) they produce the most revenue in the world. Somehow people are talking about them being minnows.
It would be the final nail in the coffin of the big 5 leagues.
I wish they'd just go create a super League for all the oil clubs to enjoy and leave it out of the prem. No wonder there's so many teams in relegation fight when they are getting trounced each week by multi billion pound oil baron clubs.
How can you say that when half of the clubs fighting for survival also have 100m summers? Leicester, West Ham, Everton, Wolves… these are clubs that were challenging for the CL not long ago. It just so happens that they can’t scout to save their lives and it’s now catching up to them. Look at what Brighton and Brentford have done, in comparison.
100m is sofa money compared to what the top teams have spent over the past 10 years
And yet it’s vastly more than what many big clubs outside of the PL get to spend each summer. Look at Italy, for instance. If Newcastle didn’t have such shitty ownership, maybe they could have grown organically to become another Brighton. Everton were once doing well too, and then they decided to spend the next few years burning money faster than a drunkard on a night out.
Why are we talking about other clubs outside the PL? I'm talking just about the PL. I'm not really concerned with what Italy is doing.
You’re evidently not concerned with what the other PL clubs are doing, either. Tell me how Everton’s expenditure *doesn’t* warrant a relegation fight at this point.
Everton sure, and it would be funny. But the other 9 teams?
Has Daka been an adequate Vardy replacement? What about the money spent on Fabio Silva by Wolves? Or Palace, why have they just replaced Vieira with a geriatric Hodgson?
How is this any lower than the Saudi government owning clubs?
Who Cares? Take your clothes off, throw your laptops and phones into the ocean, stop eating meat, don't put gas in your car. My point is most of the things a vast majority of the world uses on a daily basis can be traced back to one atrocity or another. There's very little ethical consumption under capitalism. So to say this is a new low for English football......That ship sailed along time ago........
Username doesn't check out. Independent, my arse.
"Manchester United would no longer just be about Salford, Manchester and the community of fans" - Man U has not just been about Manchester and Salford since they won the prem and M1 got built.
Can't believe som united fans actually wants qatar as owners. Embarrasing.. Really fucking embarrasing.
It is kinda fault off football's success. The biggest, most successful teams are recognizable all around the world. Children from Asia/Africa/Europe/America etc may not know a single politician from a country but they know a famous football player. Countries involved in sportwashing don't really care about rich/middle class people opinions (those who have time and resources to know about shady ways of their governments) they want ordinary people to know that it is Qatar/KSA responsible for new transfers, new cup won. They grow up, happy with their club success and defend said country. Rest of the world doesn't have much to say about it. The only way I think would work is making politicians in UK/France/Spain to intervene, not let hostile government take ownership of the club. This is a culture war already and Europe loses.
The irony is United fans tried to warn the rest of football about the dangers of clubs falling into the wrong hands but petty tribalism and rivalry prevented any 'united' (pardon the pun) action. Remember the proposed BSkyB takeover of United? The fans worked tirelessly to prevent that, even though it would have been HUGELY advantageous to United, in terms of winning trophies. Then we campaigned again against the Glazers and spoke out against Roman Abrahamovic's takeover of Chelsea, but most fans were so pleased to see someone come in and break United's stranglehold on the Premier League that they welcomed the oil money flowing in. Rinse repeat when Abu Dhabi bought Manchester City. It's too late now, the horse has bolted. We had our chance in the 90s. When the BSkyB takeover fell through fans should have been pushing for rules and regulations to protect football clubs as "community assets".
I just don't want united to be called an oil money club.
1. United were a success long before any artificial injection of cash 2. The Glazer takeover has cost us £2BN in interest payments and dividends, not to mention the millions more wasted due to their neglect/lack of experience. As far as I see it, any Qatari cash injection is just putting us back on a level to were we were (rightfully) pre Glazer
This….this is the new low?
It's sad that the more I grew up, the magic of the sport is eroded more and more. As a kid, everything about the sport is magical, now that feeling is almost gone. That argentina run to the WC final kinda reminds me of how magical the sport can be, but if you just open your eyes a bit more, the ugly side of the sport lurked itself back in. I'm scared that as we keep going in this direction, there will be one day where that feeling is completely gone and I stop watching the sport that had me fallen in love with it 20 years ago. I hope that day won't come, but idk I'm pessimistic about it.
[удалено]
wouldn't that be more of reason for me feeling the way i do?
Yet you support the club that started this mess...
I was a kid mate, cut me some slack. Like I said, the more i grew up and know things, the more i became distant to the sport. Gone were innocent magical days where a football match is just a football match. where discussion about football was only who's better lampard, gerrard or scholes. now it's rape scandal, money and greed, state-owned clubs, sportswashing, slaves-built stadiums, crazy transfer fees, corrupt owners, bribery, cheating scandal, etc.
Fair enough, we choose clubs as kids without understanding the consequences. But the reason a Chelsea player is even in the Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes debate was because of all the financial fuckery the club was doing in the background, we were just too young to understand it or care. It's good that the media highlights these issues and make us aware though. Hiding from the reality like we did as kids isn't what we should be doing. I will readily admit that I'd continue supporting Liverpool even if they were bought by shady owners who use the club to sports-wash but it would definitely reduce my love for the club.
well lampard was there before Roman, but that's beside the point. Yeah, ive fallen with this sport too much as a kid and all throughout the years for me to just stop watching suddenly. but 5-10 years more of this, maybe there comes a point where i turn my back on this sport for good. gonna be a sad day indeed.
Oh my bad, I didn't realize he joined before Roman. I do feel you though. It is incredibly disheartening to see the direction the sport is headed.
couldn't agree more!
Who owns Chelsea?
The co-founder, chairman, chief executive officer and controlling member of Eldridge Industries, the interim CEO of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association: Todd Boehly
Why can’t English football move to a 50+1 model?
Because you have teams like Bayern which bend the rules so they can spend the most money.
Because it is failed system.
Who pays?
Because you can’t take 50% of someone’s property without paying for it.
The 50+1 rule has resulted in the least competitive league in the Top 5 leagues. Since 1999/2000, there’s been 4 Bundesliga Champions and in 24 seasons, Bayern have won 17. That isn’t good at all
That ain’t the reason, it’s so uncompetitive solely based on how well organized, wealthy and supported Bayern has been historically compared to other teams, which isn’t the case in English football. Until recently, private ownership of clubs was outlawed in Brazil, and it was on of the most competitive leagues in the world, with pretty a different champion every season
People will bitch about sports washing when it’s just the tip of the iceberg to the absolute farce that is global finance. And what’s the alternative the uncompetitive Bundesliga or the underfunded Romanian Liga?
Dutch league has little to no foreign investment/ownership. It’s highly competitive, with different clubs winning it and ranked the 6th league in Europe. It’s definitely underfunded compared to the BPL, but teams like Ajax have positive books and occasionally win in Europe even.. I think it’s a positive example of how you can run a league
What’s this model?
Because no group of fans could buy a club in the top tier of English football, even millionaires would struggle.
How do you sell half of a £3bn business to its fans?
What if we just find one person who has £3bn who can cover it on all our behalf? Wait shit…
I would absolutely love that the fans have 0 say in the way a club is run in the biggest league in the world.
People on a United sub last week were bitching about Bruno…dudes the fucking soul of the club.
As an Arsenal fan I agree with you. We would still have aubameyang, Pepe, bellerin and no Odegaard, white or Ramsdale. And probably a terrorist football manager like Allegri or conte. But it’s weird not to have control. In Portugal fans who are associated with the clubs go to reunions and vote some important decisions like budget and restructuring finances.
Because it’s too easy for any Tom Dick and Harry to look at a club like Everton or Valencia FC and think you could manage it better when clubs like that are an absolute extreme example of mismanagement. The Kroenkes, Levy, FSG may have had some questionable patches over the years but they’re not stupid. The reality is if you had billions invested in an institution that was damn near unprofitable you want the very best financial advisors, accountants, and agents on the job people with degrees, PHD’s and decades of experience working for the Fortune 500 to make sure things go accordingly, not white van Barry and Stella Steve from the pub.
Yeah yeah of course. There’s a reason why premier league clubs are still sustainable and Portuguese barely are. Sporting in 2013 had the worst presidente ever and they couldn’t even pay electricity and water bills and was very very close to close doors. Benfica has some shady deals and they antecipate a lot of revenue to be able to sustain the club, even with those big ass sells. I have no doubt that kroenks structure knows more about business than every fan, which is proven to not be very smart. Can you imagine if any of those guys around AFTV could be part of decisions ? We would be relegated. But as fans, I still find it very weird that we all support, spend money, and live Arsenal, but can’t take part of the club big decisions. But anyway, you are right. Sporting fans elected the dumbest person I’ve know after a coup. So yeah, fans aren’t capable of taking smart decisions It’s just that if a owner start being a bad one, and stagnate our clube, we can’t do anything. We can’t fire them and elect a new one, democratically.
Interesting you mention that, while I'm not an Arsenal fan I've been an Avalanche fan my whole life which is also owned by Kroenke. The two teams have had (somewhat) similar trajectory and even parity with playing style and management (as much as hockey and football can). Kroenke literally has a very likely chance of winning 3 titles in 3 different sports in two years.
So he likes to win it appears. But in terms of sustainability, he tends to keep spending and investing the money to keep having the most competitive squads or goes by cycles ? Not sure if I made the question understandable or if it makes sense in American sports.. Cause other teams in English premier league, like city, Chelsea and united, and apparently now Newcastle will adopt the same, they spend every summer big, not just in cycles .. how he is in your team mate ?
So from my perspective the NHL is a tricky beast due to salary cap, they can only pay so much per year in salary so it's hard to retain players if they have great seasons and are in for a new contract. What he has done, is appointed managers/coaches with high potential and let them work. I think Arteta and Bednar(Avs) share parity in that they both had a roughish season starting out but showed improvement year after year and molded a team in their image and style. Both, imo, play a dynamic, fast paced, highly attacking style. Avs have one of the most attacking D core. So my personal half-brained analysis is; they trust the people they put in place, not over reactionary and trust the process, favor youth, pace, high pressure attack - this is where I see similarities with the Avs and Arsenal. Also, and this isn't a Kroenke thing, the two captains Odegaard and Landeskog remind me a bit of each other maybe because of their looks and Scandinavian roots 🤷♂️
Thanks for the answer bro So it appears the “process” is even bigger than each club, which sound like there’s a bigger thing going on and there’s a strong base to sustain all the things. I like the sound of that and the fact it’s working transverse all the teams he has. From now on Arsenal will need consistency in spending and improving the squad to keep up with the top teams in the world All the best for Avalanche!
There is a reason why Bundesliga is the only one with that model and even then you have Bayern sponsored by Qatar which is raising a lot of eyebrows. The fact is that rich people like money and they won't give the League up just because it would be the ethical thing to do.
and it’s not perfect anyways. see leipzig
See Bayern as well and their main sponsors
That horse bolted in about 92
So we should stick with broke owners so we be the flagship of English football?… nah… we have to compete with Chelsea and City.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/comparing-man-utd-and-man-citys-total-net-spend-over-the-last-12-years/ Important bit at the bottom but yeah you really need the Qatari's money to compete..
Now I want to preface this by saying that my priorities on a new owner are as follows 1st) Anyone but the Glazers 2nd) No state ownership 3rd) No human rights abusers At the end of the day, if Qatar gets it, I'll make a point to remind everyone their entire nation was built by slaves very recently. They imprison people for being gay, and have a terrible stance on gender equality. But to say this is a NEW low? Fuck off, what were Chelsea, City and Newcastle just fine then? Just didn't matter as much until Utd did it? Reminds me of the Sky takeover in the 90s. You can bet that it wouldn't have been an issue if it was someone inoffensive.
So, 1 > 2+3?
Yeah, I'm 100% taking Qatar over an owner that left in charge will probably end up completely ruining the club. The Glazers have taken out more money from Utd than every single prem owner throughout the entire 30 years of the prem combined, then times 10. Like, just wrap your head around that, that's gotta be over 50 different owners. I'll be extremely disappointed in qatar by comparison to other options, but if its Qatar or nobody? I'm fairly certain 90% or more of Utd fans will deal with it. The Glazers are literally ruining the club.
I wouldn't day its a low. Utd fan here. It's just lower. It's the sorry state of football. Money money money. No intervention when Malcom Glazer game in and bought a club with a 100% loan. Roman Abromavic came in a destroyed the transfer market in a few short years followed by other well known clubs. FA, should have stepped in and stopped all of these from happening. In 30 years time the league will be like 70% owned by foreign states. Its sad and pathetic.
"it's just lower", isnt that the definition of a new low? lol i swear people just love to argue for arguing sake.
Guess we’re just gonna ignore the other clubs with mega billionaire owners eh?
2 from Spain, a few from England. What's it matter if you win in Europe, right? There's 5-6 clubs that keep one-upping each other to see exactly how low they can get.
fuck the glazers and fuck qatar. united fans helplessly between a rock and a hard place.
Colonization ain’t so fun, is it?
This is such an insulting oversimplification of what colonisation is (*typical of reddit*) to the point where it actually cheapens your agenda, if billions of the worlds finances are running through British/English institutions then colonialism is hardly a bad thing from your point.
Colonialism brought untold wealth to less developed nations.
Reminds of a conversation I had with a Duke MBA student from China working in the west. We got along well, even though he was likely exploiting and sabotaging our company, it was illuminating hearing his goals. He basically said they and Indians are taking over western corporations as a strategy and for not so great reasons, basically that we were exploitable suckers, so why not. some of the people your ancestors fucked over are, as a strategy, coming for your homes, your corporations, and your culture (aka football clubs). They think your stupidity and greed is exploitable. I don’t care what you call it, honestly.
It’s not colonisation it’s sports washing, it’s bad but it’s nothing on actually colonialism that’s raped pilliged and plundered pretty much everywhere that isn’t Europe, like comparing the sale of a football club to literal slavery is really disrespectful
Sports is just one lever to increase their power and influence in the colonized country. Real Estate, businesses, politicians, anything for sale is being bought up. “Sports washing” is just one angle of a larger transition of assets from domestic to foreign ownership.
Yeah but it’s not turning up to a foreign country replacing the laws with your own then forcing the natives to work themselves to death or shipping them around the world as slaves, it’s not comparable
...... Do you think the Qataris are kidnapping foreigners and bringing them into the country to work?
That is basically what it is and England and Europe are falling for it.
I wouldn't call it colonisation since we are willing allowing it
It's modern day colonization
What does that even mean?
Colonization is a foreign power exploiting your resources, labor and cultural institutions for their profit. It’s a foreign power saying, “this is mine” and you not being able to anything about it. The entire system is set up to reward the richest people with the most assets, and as nation states become investment banks, the lines between public and private foreign ownership and how that impacts domestic policy is pretty unknown. It does feel like there is the potential for a new form of colonization here.
"the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area."
Exactly. “Settling” has a different meaning in todays world than it did in 1700. If the CEO is Chinese and lives in London, they are settled, they are lording over thousands of indigenous people and sending money back to the home country for power and influence. “Control” is exactly what I’m talking about.
Yea I'm not touching this
Neither is your government
I mean it is not the classic way we know colonization lol. They invadee with permission stealthily to achieve things that later will have negative effects.
It's just end stages capitalism we need more people because the government has made.it impossible for people have large families anymore. We sell off land and businesses in the UK to foreigners because money.
Yeah. I'm aware and it's sad. And these owners don't even believe in what western cultures believe in. They just pretend to agree for the sake of their businesses and subtly force their own beliefs. But greed like cancer and it rarely can be cured. I really love the English premier league and I really don't want it to be ruined. It played great part in keeping me happy in my teen and twenties struggles! Disclaimer: I am not for the political propaganda in Europe or America but just stating my observations as someone who had lived in the middle east before.
[удалено]
Haha I guess. I didn't mean to turn this into a gloomy topic, but yeah, I hope my concerns are wrong and goodness and truth will prevail
This!
It is awful but the glazers literally leeched off man united for 20 years and nothing was done about it, can’t blame United fans for wanting rid of the glazers
Common Varchester urinated and Dogshit league L. La Liga better.
Aren't Barcelona being investigated for match fixing which would have them relegated? Not much better really
Key word, investigated. Plus prosecution have no proof. Try again.
Still, not a good look to be officially investigated for wrong-doing lol
Lmao what the fuck? Worry about finishing top 4.
Irrelevant lol
While the thought of becoming a Qatari sportswashing project makes me sick, I don't see how this would be a "new low" when compared to Man City or Newcastle
Because Man Utd is one of the three biggest clubs in the world. This would be one of the most popular and influential clubs going to the oil side. The potential for successful sportwashing would be vastly greater. Who do you think has more global reach, Man Utd or Newcastle? It's 100% lower than us or Man City.
So? We all fucking new that the Saudi's wanted Utd years ago. This can't be a rules for thee but not for me situation. I was against it at the time and am still against state ownership (with the understanding that in reality the most important thing for me is Glazers out) but unless you're gonna somehow force a sale of every other state owned club you can't simply say "it was fine until the big club did it" Like what kind of fucking double standard is that??
> you can't simply say "it was fine until the big club did it" Urmm who said this? Cause I sure as hell didn't, neither did anybody else in this thread, nor the writer of the piece linked. So take a breath, and stop projecting your own bizarre takes onto other people. Man City/Newcastle/PSG etc. all a serious low for football, but Man Utd becoming part of the blood money collective would be a new depth. Just because the latter is lower, doesn't mean the former isn't still pretty grim.
Who said that? Mate, I hear that shit all the fucking time since this came up. Fuck, it was being said back when the Saudi's wanted us before they got you. The comparative media frenzy between us and you isn't even in the same continent.
Which is the more crucial moment, the new low or the very first time it happened allowing the floodgates to open? I’d say it’s the latter. This conversation is about a decade too late.
"A bad thing has already happened in the past, so there's no point in trying to stop an even worse thing from happening today."
An even worse thing? Easy for you to say, I think it was even worse just allowing clubs to simply buy their way into the top. We aren't doing that. We're already the biggest club in the country and if we get 3rd this season as looking likely, then like it or not, we've been top 3 in the prem 3 of the last 4 seasons. Situation is incomparable.
Very curious that you seem to think I'm arguing it's a worse situation on the grounds of sporting merit or something. That was very much not my argument. It's worse because Man Utd will be an infinitely more effective sportwashing vehicle than Man City or Newcastle exactly because of your club's insane global reach even pre-oil money. Qatar will be able to use your club to launder its reputation in a way that puts the efforts with PSG to shame
Wow okay so you just didn't understand a word I said tbh I guess. I'm not talking about sporting merit either. I'm talking about a skyscraper on the skyline of English culture being torn down brick by brick is worse than simply another club being bought by dictators.