comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
“Others saying that the existing debt will also be cleared and any money he borrows will be at his own risk which is the same as above.“
That bit is exactly what will happen if he buys it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I thought too.
We do have an army of pro Qatar fans on twitter spouting some utter tripe though which gets lapped up and it spreads like wildfire.
I don't like the cloak and daggers approach about this deal though. At least with City we know it's Sheikh Mansoor who is the money behind the club. Sheikh Jassim is said to be worth 1.6bn so he's clearly being funded by the state / Royal family. He doesn't have enough money himself to spend 5-6bn on a football club.
Doesn't sit right with me at all that we would starting the relationship under false pretences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried to explain to you before the big differences between our model and the Qataris!
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only you can convince him VC.
He bows down to you. You lucky dog.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So let’s have no more of this moral superiority crap then. You should be better than that.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know his opinion is that I am wrong. That opinion is formed by his own one.
Who is to say who is right or wrong.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know his opinion is that I am wrong. That opinion is formed by his own one.
Who is to say who is right or wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So don't get all upperty because he thinks you're wrong. It's just his opinion.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know his opinion is that I am wrong. That opinion is formed by his own one.
Who is to say who is right or wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So don't get all upperty because he thinks you're wrong. It's just his opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just mine as well.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
fackin hell. This place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. And 52 agreed with me in the end.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
“Others saying that the existing debt will also be cleared and any money he borrows will be at his own risk which is the same as above.“
That bit is exactly what will happen if he buys it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I thought too.
We do have an army of pro Qatar fans on twitter spouting some utter tripe though which gets lapped up and it spreads like wildfire.
I don't like the cloak and daggers approach about this deal though. At least with City we know it's Sheikh Mansoor who is the money behind the club. Sheikh Jassim is said to be worth 1.6bn so he's clearly being funded by the state / Royal family. He doesn't have enough money himself to spend 5-6bn on a football club.
Doesn't sit right with me at all that we would starting the relationship under false pretences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried to explain to you before the big differences between our model and the Qataris!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you mind explaining again? They bought you not due to love of the football club but for soft power, right? Your ownership by ADU is purely an ulterior motive, not due to any love of football, let alone City. It's to make them acceptable. As they seem to be to you.
And City were chosen due to being a pretty big club with massive rivals who they knew they could get support around not being said arch rivals. But please stop pretending you're anything other than what you are. Go back to why you were first bought and why your club feel the need to cheat and push boundaries ever since
City were bought for financial reasons. PSG were bought for political reason.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
City were bought for financial reasons. PSG were bought for political reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say anything involving trying to expand your influence and be seen in a more acceptable manner is always prolitical. Again, they give no flying fack about City, it's entirely political
But that wasn’t really what happened. It was about expanding business ties, to make money, both for Mansour personally and Abu Dhabi. Qatar’s political ties with France so they could buy the world cup are different motivations to what has happened with City. The whole ‘sports-washing’ project that people throw out doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not in the case of Western perceptions anyway, might have some cultural currency with Asia and the Middle East.
I’m not sure why caring about City is relevant. Most owners don’t care about the football clubs they buy, as we well know with ours, it’s about making money for most.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 22 minutes ago
I’m not sure why caring about City is relevant. Most owners don’t care about the football clubs they buy, as we well know with ours, it’s about making money for most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not relevant. I'm just making it clear that it is purely political and about how they are seen in the wider world. Can't think of an owner who actually cares about the club since the Jack Walker, Sir John Hall era back in more innocent times
But that’s not the case. It’s always been a financial endeavour. How they are seen in the wider world only matter in the sense of its impact on tourism, something that has massively grown in the last couple of decades, but they aren’t exactly trying to attract the average football fan to go there anyway. And the advertising channels they’ve created for things like Etihad Airways, and related business channels, have clearly benefited them as a result of buying City. Which is again all a financial endeavour.
The UAE didn’t need to buy a football club for political reasons when its already got good political ties with many Western nations, Britain in particular. Drawing attention to their human rights issues is a consequence they’ve had to deal with by making themselves viewable by the British masses, they won’t care about that - but they wouldn’t have bought a facking football club if they were trying to enhance their reputation with the Western masses, because they aren’t stupid.
Darren’s already covered pretty much all of it, it was for business purposes rather than political. Yes it’s still influence but it means how they run the club is entirely different. That’s what we’ve had the investment off the pitch as well as Mansour no longer owning the whole club.
In terms of how I feel about them, as owners they’ve clearly been fantastic. They’ve done it all as equity (something that would have been mandatory pre mid eighties) which means none of the risk has ever been on the club.
In terms of the political side of it, personally I’m ok with it given they haven’t tried to enforce any of that on the club or the fans, in fact the opposite and I think westernised people like Mubarak and Mansour are the route to change, I’ve never bought into isolation or exclusion as I think that has an even more detrimental impact and builds barriers rather than reducing them.
I am against both the psg and Newcastle models though.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't read 52's post that way. Knowing him as we do, I expect he was just trying to explain his own mind, rather than assert any kind of moral authority.
Ultimately, as with all of our decisions, we'll all have to decide what we can live with. Different people will have different views, and I don't expect 52 or anyone else will be judging publicly or privately the decisions of those who continue to support the club.
I haven't met anyone who already bailed to follow FCUM, for example, who judged those fans who stuck with United. Not one; and I've met a few.
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't read 52's post that way. Knowing him as we do, I expect he was just trying to explain his own mind, rather than assert any kind of moral authority.
Ultimately, as with all of our decisions, we'll all have to decide what we can live with. Different people will have different views, and I don't expect 52 or anyone else will be judging publicly or privately the decisions of those who continue to support the club.
I haven't met anyone who already bailed to follow FCUM, for example, who judged those fans who stuck with United. Not one; and I've met a few.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right ten Hag. I have no moral authority, nor am I trying to change people's minds. Just expressing how I feel. But I will stay a fan.
Sign in if you want to comment
United's potential takeover
Page 8 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 17/3/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
“Others saying that the existing debt will also be cleared and any money he borrows will be at his own risk which is the same as above.“
That bit is exactly what will happen if he buys it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I thought too.
We do have an army of pro Qatar fans on twitter spouting some utter tripe though which gets lapped up and it spreads like wildfire.
I don't like the cloak and daggers approach about this deal though. At least with City we know it's Sheikh Mansoor who is the money behind the club. Sheikh Jassim is said to be worth 1.6bn so he's clearly being funded by the state / Royal family. He doesn't have enough money himself to spend 5-6bn on a football club.
Doesn't sit right with me at all that we would starting the relationship under false pretences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried to explain to you before the big differences between our model and the Qataris!
posted on 17/3/23
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only you can convince him VC.
He bows down to you. You lucky dog.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True
posted on 17/3/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So let’s have no more of this moral superiority crap then. You should be better than that.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know his opinion is that I am wrong. That opinion is formed by his own one.
Who is to say who is right or wrong.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know his opinion is that I am wrong. That opinion is formed by his own one.
Who is to say who is right or wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So don't get all upperty because he thinks you're wrong. It's just his opinion.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 43 seconds ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees. Ratcliffe may have no more money than the Glazers, but they are both much more fitting to own our club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for you. This does not make you right or me wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does mean that he thinks you are wrong. Which is what he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His opinion is that you are wrong. Just like your opinion is that he is trying to be morally superior. They are both options. Neither are right or wrong.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know his opinion is that I am wrong. That opinion is formed by his own one.
Who is to say who is right or wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So don't get all upperty because he thinks you're wrong. It's just his opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just mine as well.
posted on 17/3/23
fackin hell. This place.
posted on 17/3/23
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
fackin hell. This place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know. And 52 agreed with me in the end.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
“Others saying that the existing debt will also be cleared and any money he borrows will be at his own risk which is the same as above.“
That bit is exactly what will happen if he buys it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I thought too.
We do have an army of pro Qatar fans on twitter spouting some utter tripe though which gets lapped up and it spreads like wildfire.
I don't like the cloak and daggers approach about this deal though. At least with City we know it's Sheikh Mansoor who is the money behind the club. Sheikh Jassim is said to be worth 1.6bn so he's clearly being funded by the state / Royal family. He doesn't have enough money himself to spend 5-6bn on a football club.
Doesn't sit right with me at all that we would starting the relationship under false pretences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried to explain to you before the big differences between our model and the Qataris!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you mind explaining again? They bought you not due to love of the football club but for soft power, right? Your ownership by ADU is purely an ulterior motive, not due to any love of football, let alone City. It's to make them acceptable. As they seem to be to you.
And City were chosen due to being a pretty big club with massive rivals who they knew they could get support around not being said arch rivals. But please stop pretending you're anything other than what you are. Go back to why you were first bought and why your club feel the need to cheat and push boundaries ever since
posted on 18/3/23
City were bought for financial reasons. PSG were bought for political reason.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
City were bought for financial reasons. PSG were bought for political reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say anything involving trying to expand your influence and be seen in a more acceptable manner is always prolitical. Again, they give no flying fack about City, it's entirely political
posted on 18/3/23
But that wasn’t really what happened. It was about expanding business ties, to make money, both for Mansour personally and Abu Dhabi. Qatar’s political ties with France so they could buy the world cup are different motivations to what has happened with City. The whole ‘sports-washing’ project that people throw out doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not in the case of Western perceptions anyway, might have some cultural currency with Asia and the Middle East.
posted on 18/3/23
I’m not sure why caring about City is relevant. Most owners don’t care about the football clubs they buy, as we well know with ours, it’s about making money for most.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 22 minutes ago
I’m not sure why caring about City is relevant. Most owners don’t care about the football clubs they buy, as we well know with ours, it’s about making money for most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not relevant. I'm just making it clear that it is purely political and about how they are seen in the wider world. Can't think of an owner who actually cares about the club since the Jack Walker, Sir John Hall era back in more innocent times
posted on 18/3/23
But that’s not the case. It’s always been a financial endeavour. How they are seen in the wider world only matter in the sense of its impact on tourism, something that has massively grown in the last couple of decades, but they aren’t exactly trying to attract the average football fan to go there anyway. And the advertising channels they’ve created for things like Etihad Airways, and related business channels, have clearly benefited them as a result of buying City. Which is again all a financial endeavour.
The UAE didn’t need to buy a football club for political reasons when its already got good political ties with many Western nations, Britain in particular. Drawing attention to their human rights issues is a consequence they’ve had to deal with by making themselves viewable by the British masses, they won’t care about that - but they wouldn’t have bought a facking football club if they were trying to enhance their reputation with the Western masses, because they aren’t stupid.
posted on 18/3/23
Darren’s already covered pretty much all of it, it was for business purposes rather than political. Yes it’s still influence but it means how they run the club is entirely different. That’s what we’ve had the investment off the pitch as well as Mansour no longer owning the whole club.
In terms of how I feel about them, as owners they’ve clearly been fantastic. They’ve done it all as equity (something that would have been mandatory pre mid eighties) which means none of the risk has ever been on the club.
In terms of the political side of it, personally I’m ok with it given they haven’t tried to enforce any of that on the club or the fans, in fact the opposite and I think westernised people like Mubarak and Mansour are the route to change, I’ve never bought into isolation or exclusion as I think that has an even more detrimental impact and builds barriers rather than reducing them.
I am against both the psg and Newcastle models though.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't read 52's post that way. Knowing him as we do, I expect he was just trying to explain his own mind, rather than assert any kind of moral authority.
Ultimately, as with all of our decisions, we'll all have to decide what we can live with. Different people will have different views, and I don't expect 52 or anyone else will be judging publicly or privately the decisions of those who continue to support the club.
I haven't met anyone who already bailed to follow FCUM, for example, who judged those fans who stuck with United. Not one; and I've met a few.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't read 52's post that way. Knowing him as we do, I expect he was just trying to explain his own mind, rather than assert any kind of moral authority.
Ultimately, as with all of our decisions, we'll all have to decide what we can live with. Different people will have different views, and I don't expect 52 or anyone else will be judging publicly or privately the decisions of those who continue to support the club.
I haven't met anyone who already bailed to follow FCUM, for example, who judged those fans who stuck with United. Not one; and I've met a few.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right ten Hag. I have no moral authority, nor am I trying to change people's minds. Just expressing how I feel. But I will stay a fan.
Page 8 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9