Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Manchester United

Status
Not open for further replies.
roydo said:
Thats the most pathetic and seemingly overly sensitive point that City fans seem to be making these days.

Anyone who questions the motives/MO of your club is racist. Ok mate.
Click to expand...
Why don't you try answering the question instead?
Or is that a bit to difficult for you?
 
roydo said:
Point me to where I said the Merican model is better than State ownership.

Like I say, very very very sensitive. Whys that?
Click to expand...
It's not state ownership. It's a private investment by a highly successful businessman.
You can scoff at that all you like but that just happens to be an inconvenient fact that
you and others cannot accept.
Let's look at it from a different perspective:
If American / British / European owners had come in and done what the 'arabs' had done at City
does anyone actually think it would be criticised anywhere near as much?
Lets cover the 'human rights' and 'sportswashing' topic before you tick that one off your bingo card:
America has probably the worst human rights record in the history of the world. Only just short of Germany in the 1930's. This is a country where still, even today, they strap people into a chair and electrocute them. If that's not bad enough they then strap people down and inject them with a lethal cocktail of drugs to kill them whilst people sit there and watch. Hey, that's cool... America is the most overtly racist country in the world (I know I lived in North Carolina for almost a year) and has no plans to stop being so anytime soon. That much is very clear. Yeah, lets talk about human rights shall we...
American owners come into the game and start to milk it. They start to drain it dry. They come up with ideas like 'Project Big Picture' just so they can screw even more money out if whilst ruining the game we know. But, that's OK as well? However, all of that is accepted and actually embraced! However, a bunch of 'arabs' come in with a serious investment plan and execute it to perfection, but that's unacceptable, wrong, immoral, sportswashing etc etc.
Have a think about it roydo. It just doesn't add up does it? and as I say, I think we know why...
 

PaulPowersTash said:
I think we know why.
Click to expand...

And there we have it. Again. Completely invalidates the rest of an excellent and factual post.

The point I was making, (and your posts prove it), is that anyone who dare question your club are branded as racist. When most football fans are pretty impressed with the club. Like you say, its run well, does spend money, (but who doesnt?), plays some ace togger, and the fans are generally sound.

I prefer your business model to the Merican franchise thing, but that doesnt mean some aspects of the ownership details are beyond criticism, but if they are questioned, its cos I am racist. Gets pretty annoying frankly.
 
roydo said:
And there we have it. Again. Completely invalidates the rest of an excellent and factual post.

The point I was making, (and your posts prove it), is that anyone who dare question your club are branded as racist. When most football fans are pretty impressed with the club. Like you say, its run well, does spend money, (but who doesnt?), plays some ace togger, and the fans are generally sound.

I prefer your business model to the Merican franchise thing, but that doesnt mean some aspects of the ownership details are beyond criticism, but if they are questioned, its cos I am racist. Gets pretty annoying frankly.
Click to expand...
I get your point. Any modern day football ownership isn't beyond criticism - it stinks we all know that.
Maybe I come across as sensitive (or maybe I am sensitive about it because its an injustice against my club and team - who knows?). But if you are unfortunate enough to read The Guardian and / or the Independent on a regular basis, then you will know it is 100% racist. If you get annoyed because it has to pointed out then I'm sorry about that. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of the criticism is based on racism. If not then what else?
 
PaulPowersTash said:
I get your point. Any modern day football ownership isn't beyond criticism - it stinks we all know that.
Maybe I come across as sensitive (or maybe I am sensitive about it because its an injustice against my club and team - who knows?). But if you are unfortunate enough to read The Guardian and / or the Independent on a regular basis, then you will know it is 100% racist. If you get annoyed because it has to pointed out then I'm sorry about that. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of the criticism is based on racism. If not then what else?
Click to expand...

Tbf mate you are bankrolled by the Abu Dhabi state.

Sheikh Mansour's wealth whilst a businessman does largely come from his background and the sponserships you have (we cant talk in fairness) is a leg up again from the owners.

I have no problem with City or their owners btw just them and PSG have unlimited amounts of wealth by essentially being state backed rather than say Everton under Usmanov/Moshiri or Chelsea under Abramovich.

I think its why Newcastles potential Saudi ownership was blocked as the football world doesn't seem to want state owned clubs turning football into a mini Middle Eastern league of super clubs throwing state oil money around.
 
roydo said:
And there we have it. Again. Completely invalidates the rest of an excellent and factual post.

The point I was making, (and your posts prove it), is that anyone who dare question your club are branded as racist. When most football fans are pretty impressed with the club. Like you say, its run well, does spend money, (but who doesnt?), plays some ace togger, and the fans are generally sound.

I prefer your business model to the Merican franchise thing, but that doesnt mean some aspects of the ownership details are beyond criticism, but if they are questioned, its cos I am racist. Gets pretty annoying frankly.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're racist at all mate, and clearly you can make a critical comment about City's ownership with being racist. But lots of people's motivations for attacking them is born out of racism in my view.
 

PaulPowersTash said:
I get your point. Any modern day football ownership isn't beyond criticism - it stinks we all know that.
Maybe I come across as sensitive (or maybe I am sensitive about it because its an injustice against my club and team - who knows?). But if you are unfortunate enough to read The Guardian and / or the Independent on a regular basis, then you will know it is 100% racist. If you get annoyed because it has to pointed out then I'm sorry about that. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of the criticism is based on racism. If not then what else?
Click to expand...

Jealousy more likely, leads to the laziest area to target.

Like you target Uniteds debt. There is little wrong with debt, as long as a club can service it. But the actual target should be the Merican franchise model/cash cow operation. Its fine when things go well, but dodgy when the inevitable change in fortune occurs.

A quick peek at North London for example.
 
artetas_biggest_fan said:
Nah, you can apply one eyed thinking to any era (“Fergie largely had a free run in the 90s when their biggest rivals the RS declined...and he only had to face such managerial heavyweights as Roy Evans, Kevin Keegan and Bruce Rioch as opposed to Jurgen Klopp, Pep and Mourinho”). Fact is United won all those titles in the 90s...did nowt in Europe mind (besides Bruce, Pallister and co. getting their backside handed to them in games by the like of Romario and Stoichkov). The RS were the best at home and abroad.

A decent appointment and the RS challenge for everything in the 90s. Beardsley, Houghton (who in Giants Stadium gave me my greatest sporting moment in ‘94), McMahon, Staunton and co. discarded, replaced by Nigel Clough, Paul Stewart (god bless him after what he’s been through), Mark Walters, Julian Dicks...Souness changed the winning DNA overnight, and bought badly to boot. It needed fine tinkering, not a mass clear out.

Ultimately, Souness took a mallet to a problem that required a chisel.

Moyes has similarly been a wrecking ball to United, discarding the back room team, changing the style of play to an expensive version of Wimbledon with Fellaini at the heart of it, and removing the aura the club had built up and instilling fear into a previous group of winners. The two biggest clubs in the country have had a very similar experience. It took the RS three decades to fully recover, United are closing in on a decade having yet to do so.
Click to expand...
@GrandOldTeam
Why do we have to suffer this kopite
 
number4. said:
Completely agree PPT - with one caveat; The "American Business model" as you put it, is exactly that, a business model designed to run a businesses profitably to make a profit and either extrude profits, as per Man United, or increase wealth through increased value of club as per Liverpool.

It is easy to swipe either aside as "poison" when your club is owned by a state which has spent over ten years, bending the rules to lose more money than allowed. 99% of clubs are not in the hands of arab states & while city might now be a "sustainable" model, if you choose to believe that, to scoff at others from such a position is bananas.

The majority of clubs are owned as business, Man City, PSG and a couple of others are the exception to that rule.
Click to expand...

Just a quick question on this mate. But Manchester City's owners have managed to turn City into both a profit making entity and have radically enhanced the value of their club, far beyond what Liverpool have done. So if we were to use that criteria then they too must have been successful?

I personally don't agree with the "poison" analogy, although it tends to bemore United and Liverpool (albeit to their previous owners) who would band about words like that. I don't think they are poison. You may not agree with their investing strategy, or their decision making approach, but clearly they arenot poison trying to destroy something. Why would they? It's in the Glaziers and FSG's interests to run a profitable business.

Every club is ran as a business, but there are different values that underpin it. Clearly some companies have management who are willing to sacrifice shorter term profitability for longer term growth. I'll be honest it's not my school of thinking in business, but it's legitimate school of thinking which many businesses adopt. Have a look at Tesla's price currently, worth about 10 x that of Ferrari, GM, Ford etc yet people are cuing up to buy them, and big investors are predicted the price increase anywhere from 2-5 x over the coming years. Yet it has no cash, no profits etc. People feel in 5 years time it will be a world leading company. Thats fair enough too, it's their money as shareholders to do with what they please.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top