Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty_b
Why concentrate on the fact that the story is being written, rather than the content itself?
If clubs, especially clubs the size of United, need to be owned by oil states to genuinely compete, then how sustainable is the game at the top level? And when it all falls apart, how's it going to affect clubs down the football pyramid?
It's already £#%&!ed as it is. This is just going to accelerate it.
|
The content is as true of Chelsea and City as it is in this instance, if not more so.
United won’t vastly change anything in the league by having an owner like this. The true damage was done when Chelsea and City were financially doped, forced transfer prices up, forced wages up massively and jumped over well ran clubs and pushed them down the pecking order, stole their players and pushed them out of European competition. United having rich owners isn’t the straw that breaks the camel’s back. As I said, where was this energy then? They didn’t care, just as they didn’t care when the Glazer’s stepped in to ruin the league’s flagship club. It’s all fun and games when it’s one in the eye for United, now it looks like it might possible go in our favour the pissing and moaning is never ending.
I’d rather not Qatar, there aren’t any other feasible options though, at least that we know of.
Edit: or Newcastle. Relegation candidates to top 4 challengers in a year which saw them start off by paying £20m for a relegation rival’s main striker, who then ended up relegated before Newcastle gave the striker away on loan a year later.
Yeah, United not having debt repayments and being able to fix up the stadium, that’s the end of the game