On the sportswashing aspect, it’s not far wrong Nine that article. If indeed it turns out to be a state ownership, which is far from as concrete as the article suggests, then it’s spot on. I find it a tad contradictive though. The last paragraph is accurate in saying that Utd don’t need a sugar daddy. They simply need an owner who doesn’t take a billion and a half out of the club. It’s that simple.
It seems to have worked on many supporters, mainly those prepared to turn a blind eye to almost anything in return for star signings.
To then suggest that those opposed to state ownership would be swayed into no longer opposing them because of new players coming in? What, those new players which the club have earned the right to buy through decades and decades of history and success? Those players? If we get star signings, it will not be because of state ownership. A nice idea, the article, but it’s very much missed the point. To suggest we’d have the Qatar ownership to thank for star players joining the club (and ultimately anti-Qatar fans would therefore turn a blind eye) is, frankly, a joke. It’s like saying we should thank Qatar for such a good World Cup. The World Cup was a great WC despite the Qataris not because of them, just as good players would continue to join us after any possible Qatari ownership just as they have done before. Did Utd fans stop protesting against and turn a blind eye to the Glazers when we were successful under their ownership or when we bought good players under their ownership? Absolutely not. The protests have continued all through the successful years and beyond. There will be a generation of fans, and I’ve always said this, that don’t care one bit who owns the club and that will always be the case. But, to suggest those opposing state ownership would be swayed by a new player coming in suggests the writer is not at all clued up on how the fanbase works.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
