Your posts and attitide suggest you have no issue with it. Our 1931 bail out isnt really on the same level either. It was worth about £30000 in today's money. Pur previous owner whp helped save the clib previously, had just died. Dont think it compares at all.
First of all, you clearly didn't read my reply in its entirety. I said I find it morally reprehensible and I don't condone it. But if fans now don't care about where the money comes from, why do you think it will be different in the future? It may be immoral and unethical, but football fans in the western world don't care. It's horrible and unfortunate, but it is what it is. Secondly, as I said, you simply can't compare the times. It's all relative to the money being spent at the time, the climate of football and how other football clubs were operating and spending their money. There was very little evidence of other clubs spending the money you did in the 1930s. What's to say the businessmen who bailed you guys out didn't earn their money from dodgy practices? You're making flimsy excuses because Chelsea and City's emergence have hampered your chances (and ours) of success.
Chelsea warped the financial climate like nothing before. Nothing comes close to the impact it had on the game. You will also find many football fans are bothered. Contrary to skys pushing of Chelsea and City, many football fans find it unsettling that some can celebrate the scum that owns these money clubs. To suggest the west isnt bothered is just wrong. As for suggesting our bailout was financed by murderous, evil and corrupt persons, it shows how poor your argument is. Tbh I just dont understand your point. You're defending the indefensible. There is nothing good about these owners. They have not bettered the game in any way. The growth wasn't natural nor sustainable. Oh, i was refering to your earlier posts in my first paragraph. Good to know your find it morally wrong, even if you fail to see how its wrong on a football level. Ask fans of clubs like Everton, Spurs, Liverpool and your own lot. All would have been more successful. It barely effected United, though weve been forced to spend way above anything weve ever done before recently.
Yup, they certainly did exacerbate the current climate. Never said otherwise. My point was that they weren't the ones who started it off, they just took advantage of a situation that had happened for decades and decades. Actually it's not wrong. Why don't we see people protesting against having people like Mansour or RA taking over these clubs? Why don't the supporter's trusts say anything about it? Even if you tried, it would be futile because they're not going anywhere and you won't convince men in higher authority positions to get rid. Unless there was a mass, angry protests regularly. Which western people don't seem to be bothered about when it comes to football. Really? Care to provide evidence to the contrary? I can. You can't. A very poor rebuttal here. Are you seriously that dense? I have said countless times I don't support what they have done in their pasts. I'm merely trying to make you understand the realism of the situation. Try convincing fans of Chelsea, PSG and Man City that, then. Their growth was honestly no different to how most clubs started off, so by your own definition, United's growth was unsustainable. This is a circular argument and you can't see your own hypocrisy.
I'm going to leave this one now but I was just wondering what evidence you have on the man who bailed us out in 1931. Unless I have misunderstood?
I didn't say he was a murderous and evil person. What I'm saying is that with people who are extremely wealthy, that are capable of buying clubs if they want to, there is more to them than meets the eye. A significant, significant majority of people who are multi-millionaires/billionaires have done deals with the devil. Now the man in question could have earned his money through exploitation which would have funded your club, but he may not have (It was a lot harder to get evidence of corruption back then though). But with that being said, you have had owners & board members that have a history of bribery and have done deals with other suspect companies, so - and this is the point - it's hypocritical of you to say "that was different" when it comes to matters involving United, yet say Chelsea and City are far worse, when you know full well that your club have benefited from money that came from businessmen with dodgy track records. Just as we have. Since you wanted to talk about the morality of owners though, let's discuss things more up to date. The Glazer Family are friends with Israel, who have a well-documented history of Human Rights abuses, have broken 77 UN resolutions and use white phosphorus on innocent civilians. Aon, one of your previous sponsors, have a history of Human Rights abuses and corruption also. Where's the morality there? Why did your club have sponsorship agreements with them? Your club is no different to Chelsea and City.
Not read the full discussion but will chip in with my take on money. Forget where it came from, most big money can be linked to unethical practices so that becomes moot. United have been baled out in the past by benefactors as have many clubs, Liverpool were nearly wound up not so long ago. The difference between these types of clubs and clubs like City and Chelsea is that they were saved and carried on as a club competing with clubs of the same ilk. City and Chelsea were not on the verge of collapse but were bought by mega-rich men/corporations as playthings who ploughed millions into them to feed an ego trip and take them well beyond their normal situations.
If rumours are to be believed Chelsea were two weeks from going into administration before Abramovic bought out Bates
I'm sorry Diego, but it seems like you're drawing distinctions between them when there are no distinctions to be made at all. Ultimately, Chelsea and City have benefitted from money which has come at the expense of other human beings and people, but so have United. Pretty much every club at the top level has. It doesn't matter what it was used for.
Whilst I'm not intending on getting involved in this debate particularly as I think both sides of the coin have valid arguments, one comment you've made here did intrigue me. "A significant, significant majority of people who are multi-millionaires/billionaires have done deals with the devil" - where do you draw this conclusion from? What do you have to support this viewpoint? Is this just part of what appears to be a current trend of thought that rich people are somehow bad? There is currently a huge philanthropical drive amongst the super rich. For example the many billionaires who have signed up to give away a minimum half there wealth within there lifetimes or upon there deaths. The rise of people getting incredibly rich through the internet has helped push a more socially responsible mindset amongst the super rich. You also have to realise that there are multi-millionaires who run local businesses and contribute massively to the local communities and provide jobs and security.
Afcftw, your inner Tory is starting to show Seriously, if you actually look at the history of some of the richest people in the world, a large proportion of them have done deals with unethical and immoral companies or have allegations against them for one thing or another. I don't think I need to give you any names and I'm sure you are aware of this. That's not to say ALL of them are like that - as it is unfair to generalise - but there's no way that people become billionaires or earn ridiculous amounts of money without a hint of crookedness. It may not necessarily be directly, it could be part of partnership agreements or stuff like that, but they still serve their own interests. They can afford to do that because they have so much money though. Look at someone like Rupert Murdoch. He has billions and billions just sitting there doing nothing. He doesn't do anything with it, he doesn't even need it. I'm sure there are and as I said, I'm not going to say all of them are like that, but for a large number of them, to earn the amounts of money that they do, they do compromise their morals for personal gain. Even those that do provide jobs don't always pay enough money to workers to survive on and don't give a damn about working conditions. They can also use temporary employment contracts which are unstable. It works both ways.
I think another thing that gets on people's nerves is the fact that since the financial crisis, when more or less affected the average person, the wealth of the 1000 richest families actually doubled. Yet we see austerity measures being used while the NHS and Welfare state deteriorate This is why I say that a large proportion of the richest people are dodgy and serve their own interests. Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a political debate again.
Chelsea certainly were on the brink and city, city were so badly run that you wouldn't have been surprised if they found themselves in administration. City spent huge amounts before the first takeover. They were top 10 in spending terms yet had been relegated multiple times.
I think we are very lucky to have an nhs and a welfare system set up to help those in need. Upon its creation nobody could have foreseen the explosion in population nor the demand for care or support. Until recently the NHS and DSS were throwing money away. They needed cleaning up and making more efficient (whether they have is debatable, my last trip to the hospital was to find out we are having a little girl, it too 20 minutes but cost £15 for 3 scans. Before that I had minor surgery about 12 years ago, it was awful, I was in there for 2 days. 3 years later I had the same surgery in a GPs surgery and was in and out within an hour). The reforms were needed, the whole system would have collapsed eventually and then what?
Damn straight. You have those huge parasitic corporations that are so greedy they do their best to avoid paying tax by moving their business HQs outside the UK which lose 100s of billions of pounds of lost revenue. But we're all in it together with this austerity unless you're a huge coffee business or a massive tech company that helps you to find stuff....
If I remember correctly, didn't you say you worked for the civil service? If so, aren't you meant to be politically neutral?
