The Saudi Takeover Rumor Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Infra-red said:
The upper echelons of the ruling family also seem to be involved in a power struggle, so probably have other things on their minds.
Click to expand...

There really doesn’t seem to have been much of a power struggle. MBS is firmly in charge:

“My sense is that he is very secure in his position, that he controls all the levers of power, and that he still enjoys the full support of his father, and that there is absolutely no daylight between him and his father. Had there been any difference or daylight, we would have seen it, because a number of people have tried to speak to the King about him, basically to complain about him. And, for a number of years now, he has enjoyed the support of his dad, who is an absolute monarch. So M.B.S. has the final say in all decisions in everything that happens in Saudi Arabia.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-an...dies-professor-interprets-mohammed-bin-salman
 
ForeverUnited93 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The club's identity is slowly dying as is. We can't remain competitive under the glazers as we need some big transfer windows to get our targets in... like 5 to 6 top top signings. City and PSG had no identity before they were bought by the Middle Eastern owners.
 
2cents said:
There really doesn’t seem to have been much of a power struggle. MBS is firmly in charge:

“My sense is that he is very secure in his position, that he controls all the levers of power, and that he still enjoys the full support of his father, and that there is absolutely no daylight between him and his father. Had there been any difference or daylight, we would have seen it, because a number of people have tried to speak to the King about him, basically to complain about him. And, for a number of years now, he has enjoyed the support of his dad, who is an absolute monarch. So M.B.S. has the final say in all decisions in everything that happens in Saudi Arabia.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-an...dies-professor-interprets-mohammed-bin-salman
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I haven't been following the situation there particularly closely, but I did read reports last month (eg here and here) suggesting that in fact there was some daylight between the King and MbS, with the latter receiving something of a rebuke in the wake of the Khashoggi affair.
 
beingshe7don said:
The club's identity is slowly dying as is. We can't remain competitive under the glazers as we need some big transfer windows to get our targets in... like 5 to 6 top top signings. City and PSG had no identity before they were bought by the Middle Eastern owners.
Click to expand...
We've spent on par with all the big boys in world football, its just that we've spent wisely. I'd much prefer to see a competent structure which makes the most of our huge financial power than to sell to the Saudis with all their baggage and issues.
 
UncleBob said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Nothing to add. Great post
 
UncleBob said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Great post mate.
 
UncleBob said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Bravo. Top post.
 
Mr. Meeseeks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
UnitedFan93 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Best post on the whole thread.
 
The tweet I shared wasn't taken out of context like someone mentioned in one of the earlier posts. Barney is someone that local fans take notice of when he relays information regarding the club. The information in question is in the fanzine that is sold, so it would be wrong for me to delve too much into something that is not for me to say considering the fanzine is part of someone's livelihood. So I just shared the tweet instead.
 
MancunianAngels said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then they aren't real fans of the club and are welcome to support anyone else.
 
UncleBob said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Fantastic post apart from the last line.
 
I was hard on Saudi's not taking over but my hate for glazers is softening my stand on the saudi's. The primary reasons being
  • Mistake after mistake in terms of Managers and transfers and club/board/owners fails to change the course of management(Woodward)
  • No major renovations or expansions planned for OT while other teams with lesser resources are able to build enviable stadiums.
  • Not allowing the club to use majority of the cash generated towards player purchases.
  • Milking us to the maximum
  • No long term plans on how the club should play and compete.

Who ever takes over us just need to allow us to use our own club generated cash and come with a good long term plan.
 
Adnan said:
The tweet I shared wasn't taken out of context like someone mentioned in one of the earlier posts. Barney is someone that local fans take notice of when he relays information regarding the club. The information in question is in the fanzine that is sold, so it would be wrong for me to delve too much into something that is not for me to say considering the fanzine is part of someone's livelihood. So I just shared the tweet instead.
Click to expand...

Buddy it's fine as a responsible fan you posted something which came to your notice . You posted an explanation along with the tweet regarding who the person and his reliability . If some one has a problem or taking it out of context to make some other unnecessary point then that's their problem since those are potshots without reason .
 
ash_86 said:
I was hard on Saudi's not taking over but my hate for glazers is softening my stand on the saudi's. The primary reasons being
  • Mistake after mistake in terms of Managers and transfers and club/board/owners fails to change the course of management(Woodward)
  • No major renovations or expansions planned for OT while other teams with lesser resources are able to build enviable stadiums.
  • Not allowing the club to use majority of the cash generated towards player purchases.
  • Milking us to the maximum
  • No long term plans on how the club should play and compete.

Who ever takes over us just need to allow us to use our own club generated cash and come with a good long term plan.
Click to expand...

I support this!

And btw this my take on right or wrong.

I try to keep political correctness and moral overdrive outside my engagement with football and United. The new world is enough crazy without taking a stance of every possible subject. If the Saudis buys the club let’s influence them the right way from the inside instead of distance ourselves from everything we dislike.
 
Ahsan_6386 said:
Buddy it's fine as a responsible fan you posted something which came to your notice . You posted an explanation along with the tweet regarding who the person and his reliability . If some one has a problem or taking it out of context to make some other unnecessary point then that's their problem since those are potshots without reason .
Click to expand...
Thanks Ahsan...
 
I would sell if I was the Glazers. Club needs a huge investment in the next five to get back to the top, wages keep going up, going up against teams like City and their unlimited funds. All this with top four being a real challenge in itself with 2 top clubs missing out every season, and that's not even going into what it will take to win the league. OT does need investment too, that's a few million thrown in there. I'm just not sure how they can keep brining the top sponsors in without much success on the pitch.
 
Won't mind if they buy us through Softbank Vision Fund. Vision fund ii is in the making and it will have diversified investments other than tech companies.
 
There has not been one realistic source about this and we are on page 45 now . Seriously why comment on something that's not happening
 
UncleBob said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Well fecking said.
 
I could make a list of all the atrocities and human rights abuses the Saudis have made themselves guilty of throughout my lifespan but it's enough to say that this is a regime who think it's totally legit to grab hold of someone while getting their wedding license - simply because they're doing their job as a journalist being critical to the regime and despite them living on foreign soil even - and then brutally murder them before chopping up their freshly choked body and dissolving it in acid leaving both the world and their close ones totally in the dark then denying everything before attempting to excuse it once it's proven undeniable. They also find it totally acceptable for someone to drag their wife / concubine / mistress / sexslave out of the car and into the middle of an intersection before casually decapitating them with a sword right there and then - simply because they were in too much of a hurry to be bothered with the inconvenience of driving all the way to the torture chamber and then behad her more privately.

All oligarchs are usually scoundrels in one way or another and every country has it's skeletons for sure - but some are definitely worse than others and should be shunned with every gaze received. If people feel comfortable supporting a club sponsored by one of the worst there is simply because they desire a quick-fix to success - then I guess that's their business not mine. Personally though I'd be out and I know a lot of United fans feel the same. Personally I dread that this will happen as that would make it impossible for me to pursue what's been a passion of mine for decades. Cheering United on under such circumstances - however - would feel too much like heiling a certain poopstain way back when and faced with the dire choice of doing that or abandoning a football club one's grown to love... I really hope it's a situation that'll never emerge and really wish I could say it'd be the toughest choice I'd ever have to make if it did - but truth be told there'd be no choice at all as it would leave me with no other option than to move on and find myself another hobby.

I've heard knitting is popular these days - or perhaps I'll take up skeet shooting. And hey there's always hockey.
 
Last edited:
So do we even know who is buying the club? Is this another case of people lumping up "Saudis" as one (i.e all rich Saudis are royal family beneficiaries or involved in the atrocities)? Either way, I'm not gonna play justice police at the expense of my club.

If a regime commits crimes, impose sanctions on them and get rid. The fact is the whole world is doing business with them. If morality is such a problem, make it illegal for such regimes to buy clubs if that's indeed who is buying us.

On top of that, United will slip. The Glazers have really damaged this club but some of you see some out of context "growth" statistics and think United are doing well as a club/business.
 
shamans said:
So do we even know who is buying the club? Is this another case of people lumping up "Saudis" as one (i.e all rich Saudis are royal family beneficiaries or involved in the atrocities)? Either way, I'm not gonna play justice police at the expense of my club.

If a regime commits crimes, impose sanctions on them and get rid. The fact is the whole world is doing business with them. If morality is such a problem, make it illegal for such regimes to buy clubs if that's indeed who is buying us.

On top of that, United will slip. The Glazers have really damaged this club but some of you see some out of context "growth" statistics and think United are doing well as a club/business.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "playing justice police" it's just that as a supporter you're also an ambassador. Some people may be more picky as to what they desire to represent than others and there's no reason to get derogatory about it one way or the other. It's not as if the universe will condemn you no matter what you choose - it's pretty immoral all things considering (if a distant star randomly farts in our general direction it won't care even if all of earth gets vaporized with everything from evil regimes to cute little bunnyrabbits alongside it) - but we all have our personal style and to me at least supporting the Saudi regime (or anything resembling) would cramp it up profoundly.

One could even argue that the best way to change something is by interacting with it and then apply pressure from up close - maybe show up at every match carrying a banner reading "please stop dissolving political dissidents in acid after choking them to death on their wedding day" or perhaps "an intersection is not the right place to decapitate your sex slaves" - "cheers for not whipping women until their ribs starts showing simply for wanting a driver's license" etc etc etc - but hey... Just consistently saying "sod off" to such enterprises is also a tried and tested approach - which in addition to putting pressure on them also lends them absolutely no support whatsoever even - so personally I favor that.

To each their own I suppose but let's hope it never comes to that.
 
Last edited:
tieunhilang said:
People get stoned and executed every day in the world. And I bet you the Glazers would happily witness such a scene if that gains them money. They are businessmen.
So I think it's time for us fans to go "Nothing personal, it's just business" after all. The Glazers have been bad owners, so feck them. 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. That's how the world goes around, mate.

Well-made point, my friend. The ones who argue against the Saudi take-over said we have invested, just not wisely. That might be true but when the hell would we become wise? The Glazers leadership have sucked ever since 2009, and 10 years passed... Nothing changed! As long as they are here, Woody would still be the one holding all the power, any sporting director would just be a Yes man to him. And Ole, despite being our manager, is just a PR man for Woodward. He says all the nice things in media about United value and how we need to be "ruthless". But in reality he plays Young and Lingard all the time, while extending contracts for Phil Jones. Ole is a PR man for the board, not the manager from what I have seen. It's the board and Woodward who triggered these situations in the first place, and they need to go.

The ones who defend them til death while using the Saudi "crime" as a strawman lacks real evidence on how the club would become worse. All they give out is moral views from what I have seen in this thread. And 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.
Click to expand...


Oh dear.....
 
The same people who don't want Arabs to take over probably wouldn't mind the Chinese helping us out with transfer fees for players even though the Chinese literally have death camps and are killing millions.
 
Relevated said:
The same people who don't want Arabs to take over probably wouldn't mind the Chinese helping us out with transfer fees for players even though the Chinese literally have death camps and are killing millions.
Click to expand...
It's because you're viewing it as Arabs vs Chinese where as that is not the discussion. Well, some are having that discussion. A lot of us are viewing it as the State of Saudi Arabia as owners because the Prince is the one rumored to buying United. The Prince is directly responsible for its State's actions.
 
Relevated said:
The same people who don't want Arabs to take over probably wouldn't mind the Chinese helping us out with transfer fees for players even though the Chinese literally have death camps and are killing millions.
Click to expand...

Who are the Chinese? People who happen to be Chinese or the Chinese Government?
 
I vote we petition Vladimir Putin to put in a bid. If he can fix a US Presidential election, fixing a title or two should be a piece of cake.
 
lsd said:
There has not been one realistic source about this and we are on page 45 now . Seriously why comment on something that's not happening
Click to expand...

Its called a forum? A place where folks can have multi-pages discussions on their favourite biscuit or even dog food.
 
7even said:
If the Saudis buys the club let’s influence them the right way from the inside instead of distance ourselves from everything we dislike.
Click to expand...

Fecking hell :lol: We’re hitting new levels in this thread. Sure, the United fans will convince MBS to turn SA into a modern day utopia :lol:
 
Relevated said:
The same people who don't want Arabs to take over probably wouldn't mind the Chinese helping us out with transfer fees for players even though the Chinese literally have death camps and are killing millions.
Click to expand...


This is what western media make you believe. Travel the world more and see for yourself.

The most brutal government in the world is not Arab or China, go figure. Also, there are many other culture and way of life other than the western values
 
Status
Not open for further replies.