The Saudi Takeover Rumor Thread

[The Nani]

I've thought of something from the opinion of someone who was against them.


Isn't it ethically better that they spend their money on United so that they have less money to use for nefarious reasons? Just a thought.

Do you really think it would affect their ability to continue to operate as per? Or that they would actually buy the club if it did?

Not being pedantic. It just seems like football and sports fans in general will justify anything to suit their fancy at times.

The whole point would be to flaunt the club for positive PR while they continue to oppress, torture and murder.

 

[Red Dreams]

@UncleBob

Your post gets to the heart of the matter.
Its why should the Saudis take over, terrible as the Glazers have been, it will be The End for me.
Manchester United will have died.

 

[In Rainbows]

Do you really think it would affect their ability to continue to operate as per? Or that they would actually buy the club if it did?

Not being pedantic. It just seems like football and sports fans in general will justify anything to suit their fancy at times.

The whole point would be to flaunt the club for positive PR while they continue to oppress, torture and murder.

No, but they technically would not be making a profit with the amount of money those type spend. And if that's the case, that's less money for other things. *Not like they wouldn't have money left over (understatement of the year) making that whole angle moot.

If we're talking ethics, that is certainly a step in the right direction. However, that was a joke on my part to make swallowing last night's defeat less bitter.

Going back to ethics, the positive PR (your argument) overshadows the point I made by a long shot. They absolutely would have supporters who would defend them because those supporters wouldn't want their club to be negatively affected money wise. In the current status quo, there is no incentive to defend them or turn a blind eye to their rancid moral compass. So absolutely I'm still against their ownership. As I find this discussion a bit interesting, one could make the argument that them being the owners of United would make more people highlight their awful actions where as right now a lot of people don't care as they're just a bunch of dickheads from a place far away from the West.

I think it would be an awful argument though.

 

[Sauldogba]

Saudis in Glazers out.

 

[tenpoless]

Spoiler

Isn't that the guy who sang Chocolate Rain on youtube? We're signing him? finally some common sense from the board.

 

[ForeverUnited93]

Manchester United will die for me if this takeover happens. Club will lose its identity and become another City/PSG.

WE AREN'T ABOUT THAT.

 

[The Nani]

No, but they technically would not be making a profit with the amount of money those type spend. And if that's the case, that's less money for other things. *Not like they wouldn't have money left over (understatement of the year) making that whole angle moot.

If we're talking ethics, that is certainly a step in the right direction. However, that was a joke on my part to make swallowing last night's defeat less bitter.

Going back to ethics, the positive PR (your argument) overshadows the point I made by a long shot. They absolutely would have supporters who would defend them because those supporters wouldn't want their club to be negatively affected money wise. In the current status quo, there is no incentive to defend them or turn a blind eye to their rancid moral compass. So absolutely I'm still against their ownership. As I find this discussion a bit interesting, one could make the argument that them being the owners of United would make more people highlight their awful actions where as right now a lot of people don't care as they're just a bunch of dickheads from a place far away from the West.

I think it would be an awful argument though.

Your final point is an interesting one. But unfortunately the West has made a habit of turning a blind eye to such politically sensitive topics as there is always the fear of being accused of tribalism or worse.

Whether you subscribe to Christopher Hitchen’s perspective or Douglas Murray’s, in fact they say/said many of the same things regarding such states and the lack of press exposing their actions.

So in the end, United is nothing but positive PR and a solid long-term investment.

 

[lewwoo]

Cant wait for the new Saudi overlords and to see the back of the leeches. Bring it on.

 

[Wumminator]

I'm laughing because you're trying to separate two things that are related.

For me this is very simple, I obviously want the club to be successful, but if I have to choose between no success and success as a result of unlimited resources because the club has become a PR campaign for one of the worst regimes in the world, then no success it is.

I think back at the days when Murdoch failed with his takeover attempts, the consequences it would have for English football and United, and the amount of United supporters who protested against the takeover even though it probably would've resulted in more trophies. Then I think of Manchester City and Thaksin, how the supporters were happy to ignore his crimes, simply because he was going to finance players so they could win trophies. Interesting difference.

Bit surprised that it's taken such a short time for United supporters to go down the same path, willing to accept the club as nothing more than a PR campaign, a shiny new toy, for one of the worst regimes in the world. First of all, where's the fun of being in a situation where you can just spend money without consequence in order to win, it takes away half the point. City are there by pure coincidence, not because they laid the foundation and built on it, slightly different paths and it could've been Everton instead, it's meaningless.

As a PLC, prior to the takeover, it's not like the priority was success over money. It was always a balance between investment and churning out profits, taking advantage of every opportunity to cash in. If a player became available that Fergie wanted, it would have to be approved by the board as a special circumstance and it would come out of next years transfer budget. Fergie loathed it, according to him it was easier working under the Glazers.

In terms of investment under the current ownership. Since Fergie retired we've spent £670mill on transfer fees, not to mention the free transfers of Sanchez and Zlatan, and we now have one of the highest wage bills in Europe, it should be clear to everyone that we've invested heavily in players.

The issue is sure as hell not lack of investment, it's not the state of the training facilities and it's not the state of Old Trafford.

There's no reason whatsoever why we couldn't have invested close to £700mill in 5 years on better players, it's not like the structure of the club prevented it. The structure, albeit with different people, is the same as it was under Fergie. The manager identifies the players and the club tries to sign them. Wrong manager was picked, wrong players were identified and signed.

Our aim, seemingly verified by Ole, is now to change the structure and bring in a sporting director which will ensure that the club will sign players that suit an overall plan, then hire managers based on that, Mourinho was against it.

This whole "We can't challenge unless we get unlimited funds from Saudis" agenda is absurd, people thought we couldn't challenge Chelsea either when they were given unlimited funds from Abramovich.

Why not just support City instead ?

Outstanding post.

 

[Adnan]

Our decline started 10 years ago. The summer when we sold Ronaldo to Madrid and Tevez went to City. Rather than reinvest the Ronaldo money on world class talent, that money went on servicing the debt at the time which stood at £700 million. Yes, the Glazer debt. As a result we ended up with Owen, Valencia and Obertan; three players who were nowhere near good enough for the standards of Manchester United.

Fast forward a few years and we started to hear the no value in transfer market line. While City were buying the likes of Aguero, Silva, Tevez, Toure, we were buying Jones, Young, Buttner etc. Average midtable dross. The no value in the transfer market line came directly from the Glazers! We missed out on Hazard at that time because the Glazers weren't willing to pay his agent £5 million at the time!

OT is starting to look dated, yet the Glazers have shown zero interest in investing in the stadium. The reason why OT hasn't been updated is because we are still £500 million in debt. Are we going to borrow £500 million to fund an OT stadium redevelopment when we are half a billion in debt? The answer is clearly no. The Glazer debt is the main barrier to any future OT redevelopment.

The last 6 years are just the consequence of years of under investment from 2005 to 2013. That is down to the Glazers. The Glazers were lucky that they had SAF running the club in the early years, however once he retired they were badly exposed. It is the reason why we are now panic buying players, often paying over the odds in the process.

Ultimately, the Glazers are the root cause of our decline and until they go I can't see how things are going to get better.

Agreed, good post..

 

[Infra-red]

If the Arabs can do the better job for us, then we will gladly have them as owners and don't care if they even have freaking secret holocausts... this world doesn't revolve around moral, friends. It revolves around money and success. So they can slaughter, stone, decapitate...or whatever to their people. I couldn't care less if it doesn't harm us and even make us more successful/profitable. That's just how the world is.

Fecking hell.

 

[Cassidy]

Fecking hell.

Haha whilst I dont agree about being ok with it. Its true that that is how the world is.

 

[Nick7]

Is there literally any rumours other than one out of context tweet, or are people just trying to will this into existence?

 

[BigBebe]

Haha whilst I dont agree about being ok with it. Its true that that is how the world is.

Ehm, no it isn't.

 

[Cassidy]

Ehm, no it isn't.

Your opinion. In mine it is.
Many of the institutions we depend upon are complicit in these atrocities and turn a blind of because of money. Including our own governments.

Saying that though I dont condone it and would rather we didnt follow suit.

 

[Tincanalley]

...The whole point would be to flaunt the club for positive PR while they continue to oppress, torture and murder.

@UncleBob

... should the Saudis take over, terrible as the Glazers have been, it will be The End for me.
Manchester United will have died.

Manchester United will die for me if this takeover happens. Club will lose its identity and become another City/PSG.

WE AREN'T ABOUT THAT.

This, this and this. And to all the other decent posters who expressed this sentiment. Solidarity. There are some things more important than football.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Is there literally any rumours other than one out of context tweet, or are people just trying to will this into existence?

There's been tweets from reliable reporters that someone is looking to buy the club.

And I remember someone mentioning that 2 of the Glazers might be interested in selling.

 

[Infra-red]

Is there literally any rumours other than one out of context tweet, or are people just trying to will this into existence?

The latter, it seems. There has been no news, or reports, since they murdered and dismembered Khashoggi last October.

The upper echelons of the ruling family also seem to be involved in a power struggle, so probably have other things on their minds.

 

[Nick7]

There's been tweets from reliable reporters that someone is looking to buy the club.

And I remember someone mentioning that 2 of the Glazers might be interested in selling.

Which reporters?

 

[Carolina Red]

What makes you think they will be other than businessmen?

If they got into the PL, they’d want to look good in their friendly rivalry with fellow petro princes. I don’t see them milking a cash cow and just letting the Emirates have bragging rights.

 

[TRUERED89]

@UncleBob

Your post gets to the heart of the matter.
Its why should the Saudis take over, terrible as the Glazers have been, it will be The End for me.
Manchester United will have died.

Manchester United will never die, no matter how shit we are on the pitch or who the owners are . Please go and support Man City.

Kind Regards

 

[MancunianAngels]

Manchester United will never die, no matter how shit we are on the pitch or who the owners are . Please go and support Man City.

Kind Regards

It’s funny when you think about it. Fergie told matchgoing reds of 30 years + to “feck off and support Chelsea” if they don’t like the Glazers. Perhaps if he and others (David “Debt is the road to ruin” Gill) had shown some more backbone, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

For many the clubs soul is every bit as important as what happens on the pitch. The Glazers are bad, the Saudis would be the final nail in the coffin for many.

 

[IrishMcD]

So I'm presuming there is absolutely no new rumours or news, other than people discussing the good and bad points of a potential take over? Or have I missed something?

 

[deadrevelz]

If Pep had not won the league in his second season after spending like £300m then do you think he would have survived? No.

If the Saudis come in and spend a lot of cash they not coming in to finish top four, so top reds like you can applaud it as some sort of achievement. They coming in to win things and challenge for stuff something we should be doing.

And you changed the goalposts to two horse leagues and all that. These teams don’t struggle to find managers. Do you think Ole is the only manager out there? Did you see how we sacked Van Gaal hours after winning the cup? Did that stop lots of managers wanting the Man Utd job? You making up stuff as you go along.

Yes he would.

 

[Infra-red]

So I'm presuming there is absolutely no new rumours or news, other than people discussing the good and bad points of a potential take over? Or have I missed something?

You are correct. Nothing new in the last 7 months.

Thread was bumped because some transfer muppets see the Saudi petrodollars as the light at the end of the tunnel of a miserable season and are therefore actively willing a takeover to happen (despite the lack of evidence).

 

[IrishMcD]

You are correct. Nothing new in the last 7 months.

Thread was bumped because some transfer muppets see the Saudi petrodollars as the light at the end of the tunnel of a miserable season and are therefore actively willing a takeover to happen (despite the lack of evidence).

Thanks mate, thought there hadn't been any further rumours alright.

 

[Cloud7]

Think this deserves a place in this thread:

Spoiler: Image

This is quite good. The latter ones aren’t really applicable to us, but the first two are spot on. We’re seeing it in post after post in this thread.

 

[Mr. Meeseeks]

This whole "We can't challenge unless we get unlimited funds from Saudis" agenda is absurd, people thought we couldn't challenge Chelsea either when they were given unlimited funds from Abramovich.

Why not just support City instead ?

I dont get that justification either. A look at Liverpool right now shows that you dont need oil money to be successful. You need a good structure that can identify weaknesses in the squad and strengthen accordingly. They have bought the right players that were available for the right price. They didnt just sign the most high profile name they could get. They didnt target any improbable 'galactico' type players during long running transfer sagas that end in the player signing a new and improved contract with their club. All their targets were realistic and improved their squad.

We dont need to sell our souls by helping murderous, socially backward regimes with their PR. We just need to be a well run club.

 

[Cloud7]

I'm laughing because you're trying to separate two things that are related.

For me this is very simple, I obviously want the club to be successful, but if I have to choose between no success and success as a result of unlimited resources because the club has become a PR campaign for one of the worst regimes in the world, then no success it is.

I think back at the days when Murdoch failed with his takeover attempts, the consequences it would have for English football and United, and the amount of United supporters who protested against the takeover even though it probably would've resulted in more trophies. Then I think of Manchester City and Thaksin, how the supporters were happy to ignore his crimes, simply because he was going to finance players so they could win trophies. Interesting difference.

Bit surprised that it's taken such a short time for United supporters to go down the same path, willing to accept the club as nothing more than a PR campaign, a shiny new toy, for one of the worst regimes in the world. First of all, where's the fun of being in a situation where you can just spend money without consequence in order to win, it takes away half the point. City are there by pure coincidence, not because they laid the foundation and built on it, slightly different paths and it could've been Everton instead, it's meaningless.

As a PLC, prior to the takeover, it's not like the priority was success over money. It was always a balance between investment and churning out profits, taking advantage of every opportunity to cash in. If a player became available that Fergie wanted, it would have to be approved by the board as a special circumstance and it would come out of next years transfer budget. Fergie loathed it, according to him it was easier working under the Glazers.

In terms of investment under the current ownership. Since Fergie retired we've spent £670mill on transfer fees, not to mention the free transfers of Sanchez and Zlatan, and we now have one of the highest wage bills in Europe, it should be clear to everyone that we've invested heavily in players.

The issue is sure as hell not lack of investment, it's not the state of the training facilities and it's not the state of Old Trafford.

There's no reason whatsoever why we couldn't have invested close to £700mill in 5 years on better players, it's not like the structure of the club prevented it. The structure, albeit with different people, is the same as it was under Fergie. The manager identifies the players and the club tries to sign them. Wrong manager was picked, wrong players were identified and signed.

Our aim, seemingly verified by Ole, is now to change the structure and bring in a sporting director which will ensure that the club will sign players that suit an overall plan, then hire managers based on that, Mourinho was against it.

This whole "We can't challenge unless we get unlimited funds from Saudis" agenda is absurd, people thought we couldn't challenge Chelsea either when they were given unlimited funds from Abramovich.

Why not just support City instead ?

Outstanding post.

 

[Hawks2008]

I don't see the current owners selling to be honest.

 

[Cloud7]

You are correct. Nothing new in the last 7 months.

Thread was bumped because some transfer muppets see the Saudi petrodollars as the light at the end of the tunnel of a miserable season and are therefore actively willing a takeover to happen (despite the lack of evidence).

I’ve found this quite funny to be honest. There was a period where there were almost daily posts in here from a few posters who seemed to be willing this to go through. Hoping beyond hope that if they post enough and hope hard enough that the Saudis will buy United

 

[Nick7]

The latter, it seems. There has been no news, or reports, since they murdered and dismembered Khashoggi last October.

The upper echelons of the ruling family also seem to be involved in a power struggle, so probably have other things on their minds.

I thought so, I've seen a couple of posters on here using the "negotiations" with the Saudi's as the reason we haven't signed anyone and thought they were off their rocker. I hope this never ever happens, doesn't look like it will anyway.

 

[passing-wind]

People saying the club's identity will die has this not already happened ? In the last ten years our biggest achievement the Europa League final and finishing second. Wasted endless resources financially on players who aren't good enough, we've got a pensioner on close to half a million a week which has crippled contract negotiations. What the Glazer's have with Solskjaer is a yes man still coherent with the structure which has seen this club fail.

Unless in a month or so we appoint a director of football id welcome new ownership with open arms, because new ownership equals new structure, new structure means we have an effective foundation and platform to build success upon.

Couldn't care if we was owned by Disney, this club is full of tradition and history on the pitch, that's where the differentiation between PSG / City comes in. If Real Madrid was owned by one of the ABU lot would they then all of a sudden become a plastic tin pot club ? The answer is no.

 

[vanderpants]

I don't see the current owners selling to be honest.

they dont need to and wont sell as its still a massive money making machine for them

 

[Red00012]

I’ve found this quite funny to be honest. There was a period where there were almost daily posts in here from a few posters who seemed to be willing this to go through. Hoping beyond hope that if they post enough and hope hard enough that the Saudis will buy United

It’s a bit similar to the Sancho situation, a non story yet posters want to believe it.

 

[Siorac]

I dont get that justification either. A look at Liverpool right now shows that you dont need oil money to be successful. You need a good structure that can identify weaknesses in the squad and strengthen accordingly. They have bought the right players that were available for the right price. They didnt just sign the most high profile name they could get. They didnt target any improbable 'galactico' type players during long running transfer sagas that end in the player signing a new and improved contract with their club. All their targets were realistic and improved their squad.

We dont need to sell our souls by helping murderous, socially backward regimes with their PR. We just need to be a well run club.

Liverpool's biggest strength is their front three. Three players we, as fans, would have turned our nose up to back when they were available. Mané was the only one who had a sizeable "fan club" on the Caf. The three of them, in total, cost less than Pogba.

Yet now we supposedly cannot compete with them without signing superstars with oil money. Finding our own Salah or Mané and improving them in a system designed to get the most out of them is apparently out of the question.

 

[Cloud7]

It’s a bit similar to the Sancho situation, a non story yet posters want to believe it.

I would disagree on that. Sancho has been namedropped by our manager (I think), he’s a player in a position that we need, and fits the profile of signings we’re trying to get. Not to take this thread off topic but there are a lot of logical reasons to say that people can get excited for that.

On the other hand, this thread is about a change of ownership, nothing anywhere near as simple as a football transfer. This isn’t something that can just happen on a whim, and there’s been no evidence bar a couple reports. It’s not like we’ve had one of the Glazers come out and say “It sure would be nice if some rich family from the Middle East came and bought the club.” As far as I can see it most of the traction for this story is being pushed by united fans who want this to happen.

 

[SapperBRed75]

Whatever happens, will not be shaped or influenced by us. If the Glazers decide to sell to the Saudis, then it will inevitably happen and as Man Utd fans we each have our own decision to make about whether we can continue to support the club. If it doesn't sit well with our respective consciences, we can make a choice accordingly...

 

[Reiver]

I would disagree on that. Sancho has been namedropped by our manager (I think), he’s a player in a position that we need, and fits the profile of signings we’re trying to get. Not to take this thread off topic but there are a lot of logical reasons to say that people can get excited for that.

On the other hand, this thread is about a change of ownership, nothing anywhere near as simple as a football transfer. This isn’t something that can just happen on a whim, and there’s been no evidence bar a couple reports. It’s not like we’ve had one of the Glazers come out and say “It sure would be nice if some rich family from the Middle East came and bought the club.” As far as I can see it most of the traction for this story is being pushed by united fans who want this to happen.

Agreed. It's nothing but wish fulfillment from some who feel Middle East investment is the only way we can compete again.

 

[Red00012]

I would disagree on that. Sancho has been namedropped by our manager (I think), he’s a player in a position that we need, and fits the profile of signings we’re trying to get. Not to take this thread off topic but there are a lot of logical reasons to say that people can get excited for that.

On the other hand, this thread is about a change of ownership, nothing anywhere near as simple as a football transfer. This isn’t something that can just happen on a whim, and there’s been no evidence bar a couple reports. It’s not like we’ve had one of the Glazers come out and say “It sure would be nice if some rich family from the Middle East came and bought the club.” As far as I can see it most of the traction for this story is being pushed by united fans who want this to happen.

I can’t remember Ole name dropping sancho ?