Dubai a contender to buy Man Utd

There’s a difference between being owned by unscrupulous individuals who belong to one state or the other, and the actual states themselves… It seems almost stupefyingly obvious to point this out before the “OMG you hypocrites, what about X!?” becomes all encompassing…

It would be absolutely insane for Manchester United to be owned outright by the United States of America, and I’m pretty sure everyone would be against it. But we’re not.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Dubai, UAE, USA, UK... All the same shit beast on this earth..

Yemen is getting drowned in UK bombs daily via Saudi, the middle east has been flattened numerous times by the US and the UK and for no good reason other than lies and media propaganda. Could Dubai etc step up and come into the 21st century in regards to womens and LGBT rights? Of course they could and they should but to paint the UK in any better light is just kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

It's not kidding ourselves mate. Have you been to Dubai? It is propped up with slave labour and those people are treated like shit on a daily basis. And Dubai is much better than Saudi/Qatar and some others.

Just because UK and USA are bad doesn't mean every shade of grey is the same.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm naive but Dubai have a pretty decent reputation as being a more progressive nation when compared to other parts of the UAE, at the very least it's more relaxed about a lot of 'foreign' customs? I appreciate that's still terrible for swathes of the population but it at least speaks of a more progressive Emirate being created? I'm trying to be really careful with how I word all of this because I can hear alarm bells going off in my head such as 'Pidgy, one of your kids would probably be arrested in Dubai simply for being themselves' and that angers me. Then I also take a look around my own country and think it wasn't long ago that the same would have happened.

It seems like a lot of people are comparing Dubai unfairly to Saudi Arabia. If you're getting confused then Dubai's the one where people can wear bikinis on the beach and at school the girls aren't shoved in a cupboard away from the boys.
 
it’s weird - most of the time that countries are the way they are is usually due to the United Kingdom and how they ruined it.
 
If someone is willing to buy Utd, invest every year in the squad, make the training facilities top notch and make the stadium into a world class one then I'm all for it, anyone who isn't will just see everything rot, Utd need major money and only certain people can do it,
 
Tarrou said:
It's not kidding ourselves mate. Have you been to Dubai? It is propped up with slave labour and those people are treating like shit on a daily basis. And Dubai is much better than Saudi/Qatar and some others.

Just because UK and USA are bad doesn't mean every shade of grey is the same.
Click to expand...

No, not every shade is the same but it's all grey.

London is full of drug money of which the majority is Albanian laundered through American sweet shops. Most of the Romanian car washes in the UK are propped up with slave labour too btw, just here where I live a number of them were raided by the GLAA and closed down.

We just do a better job of hiding it here.

As for your original question, no I have not been to Dubai and I wouldn't because the whole place to me gives off a fake vibe and I prefer a much more natural environment.
 
Bebestation said:
it’s weird - most of the time that countries are the way they are is usually due to the United Kingdom and how they ruined it.
Click to expand...

to be fair to us it was nothing but a few goat herders and tents before we showed up.. so we can at least claim an assist in fecking things up
 
This is way more likely than Jim Ratcliffe buying Manchester United. Absolutely can see the Glazers selling the club to this lot. And unfortunately its out of our control.
 
OleGunnar20 said:
Sure, but there's a difference between a Musk or Radcliffe and a Putin or Kim Jong for example, im sure you'd agreee.

It's far from black and white 'Billionaire = Bad'
Click to expand...

Yes. But dubai isn't on par with kim jong, i'll put them somewhere in the middle between the figures you've cited.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Dubai, UAE, USA, UK... All the same shit beast on this earth..

Yemen is getting drowned in UK bombs daily via Saudi, the middle east has been flattened numerous times by the US and the UK and for no good reason other than lies and media propaganda. Could Dubai etc step up and come into the 21st century in regards to womens and LGBT rights? Of course they could and they should but to paint the UK in any better light is just kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
The middle east sheiks are lackeys of the west, they continue to survive with the leave of the powers that be of the west.
 
Has there been any further credible link that this is remotely true?
 
VidaRed said:
Yes. But dubai isn't on par with kim jong, i'll put them somewhere in the middle between the figures you've cited.
Click to expand...

What good reason does a state have for owning a football club?

I don't care if it is Kim Jong Un or somewhere moderately sensible like Norway or New Zealand. If a country wants to buy a football club they want to do it for terrible anti-democratic, anti-human rights reasons which is evidenced through the act of wanting to buy the club itself and we should fight that at all costs.

Man Utd should never be the sportswashing arm of a state.
 
It might be a false rumor but I can see it happening. Dubai can afford it and I can see the Glazers happily selling it to them. Dubai can absolutely offer what the Glazers want and will outbid any people like Jim Ratcliffe.
 
Dion said:
What good reason does a state have for owning a football club?

I don't care if it is Kim Jong Un or somewhere moderately sensible like Norway or New Zealand. If a country wants to buy a football club they want to do it for terrible anti-democratic, anti-human rights reasons which is evidenced through the act of wanting to buy the club itself and we should fight that at all costs.

Man Utd should never be the sportswashing arm of a state.
Click to expand...

We're not being owned by a state though are we ? On the contrary, an individual (monarch) will own the club like he owns his kingdom.

Although i agree with your general sentiment.
 
RoyH1 said:
It is whataboutism. Sorry. I don't care the colour of the skin of who owns us (mixed raced myself) or who they . I just do not want a state owned entity owning us. Is that so incredibly hard to understand?
Click to expand...
It's not whataboutism when we're literally owned by oligarchs who fund the campaigns of human rights abusing politicians.

It's not hard to understand, it's that you've been unable to make a case for why a state owning the club is worse than an oligarch owning the club.

justsomebloke said:
You don't see the difference between, say, an american billionaire and an investment fund owned and run by a state?
Click to expand...
On a technical level, sure. On a moral level, absolutely not. The state in question is owned/run by human (rights abusing) garbage. The billionaire in question funds human (rights abusing) garbage.
 
VanDeBank said:
It's not whataboutism when we're literally owned by oligarchs who fund the campaigns of human rights abusing politicians.

It's not hard to understand, it's that you've been unable to make a case for why a state owning the club is worse than an oligarch owning the club.


On a technical level, sure. On a moral level, absolutely not. The state in question is owned/run by human (rights abusing) garbage. The billionaire in question funds human (rights abusing) garbage.
Click to expand...

Then you are blind to essential distinctions.
 
Woodzy said:
City's titles 'count' already, i'm not sure anyone even disputes that. Their lack of history and integrity as a 'big' club is contested, but no one questions their title count. What we should be really worried about is if things continue as they are then within the next 15 years we will be looking at a City team that has nearly as many league trophies as us.

State owned clubs dominate football now, we need to accept that. Within 5 years Newcastle will be challenging for tophies too. It shouldn't be the way, but unfortunately it's been allowed to happen. As fans we need to decide whether are we happy not being able to compete on a long-term basis, especially with our current owners, or whether we want the backing that levels the playing field.

Anyway, as someone else mentioned, a state owned club buying Manchester United would likely be the one that brings all the unwanted attention so could be the move that provokes the powers that be to take action.
Click to expand...
This is a false dichotomy. Liverpool won a title without being a state-backed club and there is no guarantee Newcastle will challenge. This notion that oil-backed clubs will take over football is one based on fear. If this happens, United are no better than "Chelski" or "Citeh" no matter how many excuses are made.
 
hellhunter said:
It's not comparable, though. City were brought from absolute obscurity to winning the league. We're still the most successful club in England (especially since the PL era).

Still dead against being bought by oil money
Click to expand...
Let's not be hypocrites. It's the same, but I'm glad you are against it.
 
VidaRed said:
We're not being owned by a state though are we ? On the contrary, an individual (monarch) will own the club like he owns his kingdom.
Click to expand...
This is a spurious distinction. A state actor using state funds is being owned by the state.
 
MackRobinson said:
This is a false dichotomy. Liverpool won a title without being a state-backed club and there is no guarantee Newcastle will challenge. This notion that oil-backed clubs will take over football is one based on fear. If this happens, United are no better than "Chelski" or "Citeh" no matter how many excuses are made.
Click to expand...
Well we aren't winning a title under the Glazers in the future. I want Jim Ratcliffe but problem is Dubai is way richer. If Dubai gets involved Glazers are selling the club to them and we can't do anything about it.
 
justsomebloke said:
Then you are blind to essential distinctions.
Click to expand...
What's the distinction on a moral level?

Are the glazers' hands slightly less dirty than the emir of Dubai's because they're one step removed from the actual damage Trump or Bush caused?

I think you're being incredibly naive by making a distinction on a moral plain, between, scumbag giving the orders and someone giving shitload of money and political support to a scumbag that gives the orders (the latter of which is far more powerful and causes far more damage than the former ever could)

If you willingly give money to Trump's/Bush's campaign you're worse than the Emir of Dubai and you need to buy into some very convoluted logic to see it differently.

I've yet to hear arguments from anyone quoting me and disagreeing with my viewpoint. You're just restating your stance.
 
I don't want to be owned by a state. Any state - doesn't matter where they're based.

I've been fundamentally against it since City were bought, then PSG, then Newcastle and I'd be a hypocrite not to be against it for United.

It is no longer sport when some sides don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
 
VanDeBank said:
What's the distinction on a moral level?

Are the glazers' hands slightly less dirty than the emir of Dubai's because they're one step removed from the actual damage Trump caused?

I think you're being incredibly naive by making a distinction on a moral plain, between, scumbag giving the orders and someone giving shitload of money and political support to a scumbag that gives the orders (the latter of which is far more powerful and causes far more damage than the former ever could)

If you willingly give money to Trump's/Bush's campaign you're worse than the Emir of Dubai and you need to buy into some very convoluted logic to see it differently.

I've yet to hear arguments from anyone quoting me and disagreeing with my viewpoint. You're just restating your stance.
Click to expand...

I'd rather say you're incredibly simplistic to assume that everyone who may somehow have done or contributed in some way to something that is in some way or to some degree morally problematic are on an equal footing.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
For the record, I would be against this take over for United.

But the Manchester City contention is about a number of issues. Such as alleged fake sponsorships, hidden spending effectively leading to unlimited spending and throwing money at lawyers to avoid having to adhere to FFP rules. All alongside the human rights abuses of the UAE.

See below.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...chester-city-received-payments-from-abu-dhabi

https://football-italia.net/mancini-accused-of-receiving-hidden-payments-from-manchester-city/

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions

https://offthepitch.com/a/exclusive...no-staff-no-active-products-and-being-run-out
Click to expand...
Dubai is the UAE, so there is that. I don't see the point in comparing which terrible situation is more terrible. Just sounds like a gateway to acceptance.
 
MackRobinson said:
Glory hunting is in vogue. No one is even remotely ashamed anymore.

"But City and PSG..."
Click to expand...
MackRobinson said:
If this happens, would City's PL titles "count" again or would United's future titles not count? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
MackRobinson said:
This is a false dichotomy. Liverpool won a title without being a state-backed club and there is no guarantee Newcastle will challenge. This notion that oil-backed clubs will take over football is one based on fear. If this happens, United are no better than "Chelski" or "Citeh" no matter how many excuses are made.
Click to expand...

What’s your agenda here? Are you a city fan or something?
 
MackRobinson said:
Let's not be hypocrites. It's the same, but I'm glad you are against it.
Click to expand...

City were relegation fodder before Shiek Monsour brought the club. Compared to the major European clubs, they spent little in the transfer market, their stadium was outdated and had a meagre fanbase.

Despite the barren run of trophies, United continually outspend the European elite, has one of the largest stadiums in the world and has an equally large fanbase.

A buyer wouldn't have nearly the same impact on United as Monsour had on City, regardless of their net wealth.
 
Slysi17 said:
Well we aren't winning a title under the Glazers in the future. I want Jim Ratcliffe but problem is Dubai is way richer. If Dubai gets involved Glazers are selling the club to them and we can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...
United just beat Liverpool and Arsenal (the team on the top of the table) and are three points off the top. Just plain weird fans are so focused on the owners that you can just write off an entire season that looks promising.
 
Dion said:
This is a spurious distinction. A state actor using state funds is being owned by the state.
Click to expand...
He is not a state actor, he owns the state. He is the sovereign.

In england the sovereign is the parliament while in dubai it is the ruler himself.
 
TheReligion said:
What’s your agenda here? Are you a city fan or something?
Click to expand...
Your schtick is so predictable, but I'll humor you just this one time. Mmk?

I think it would be a travesty if United went the way of City, Newcastle, and PSG's ownership model. The end.
 
VanDeBank said:
What's the distinction on a moral level?

Are the glazers' hands slightly less dirty than the emir of Dubai's because they're one step removed from the actual damage Trump or Bush caused?

I think you're being incredibly naive by making a distinction on a moral plain, between, scumbag giving the orders and someone giving shitload of money and political support to a scumbag that gives the orders (the latter of which is far more powerful and causes far more damage than the former ever could)

If you willingly give money to Trump's/Bush's campaign you're worse than the Emir of Dubai and you need to buy into some very convoluted logic to see it differently.

I've yet to hear arguments from anyone quoting me and disagreeing with my viewpoint. You're just restating your stance.
Click to expand...

They're definitely not one step away. Makhtoum has been entrenched in all kinds of controversies including the kidnapping of his own daughter who attempted to flee Dubai, one of this wives had to flee the country with her two kids to avoid abuse. One can see why he would want to sportwash away all of this by presenting his subjects a shiny new gift to rebuild his credibility.
 
MackRobinson said:
Your schtick is so predictable, but I'll humor you just this one time. Mmk?

I think it would be a travesty if United went the way of City, Newcastle, and PSG's ownership model. The end.
Click to expand...

It will never happen, the fans would never allow it.
 
Random Task said:
It will never happen, the fans would never allow it.
Click to expand...
And I'm glad. It's just weird seeing posters try to make a distinction between City's owner and the potential of Dubai owners. It's the same thing, which is worse than the Glazers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.