We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Soros buys into Man U

I seem to recall someone (one of our commenters here?) saying that George Soros is the nearest thing in reality to a James Bond villain.

So I guess we now know which football team we here do not now support.

Well played Everton.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

31 comments to Soros buys into Man U

  • 'Nuke' Gray

    This is what happens when you tell a rich person to Man Up! Be very careful what you wish for, around billionaires…

  • Edward

    I am genuinely torn. On one hand, Soros is a proglodyte scumbag who directly funds the extension of leftist rule in the US. On the other hand, he’s directly responsible for White Wednesday, when the UK was liberated from the ERM, and made it politically impossible for us to join the (now-doomed) Euro…

  • Edward

    I share your tornness.

  • On the other hand, White Wednesday is a done deal, but the spreading of leftist power across the world is ongoing.

    So on balance, I hope Man U keep on losing.

  • Edward

    Agree wholeheartedly, Brian.

    Though, as a currency speculator, he may yet, still, do something to further the cause of liberty. I’m sure he’d be happy to take the Euro down once and for all if he though it’d earn him a buck or two. Here’s hoping…

  • RRS

    Hey Brian and Edward,

    We can also be grateful for the appearance and actions of Hitler, which united us all against evil – mebbe?

  • Hitler united us with evil.

  • John K

    Manchester United is the plaything of corporate rapists. Have pity on the poor victim being spitroasted by the Glazer clan and George Soros.

  • Alisa

    RRS has a point. I am absolutely not torn about Soros.

  • Alisa

    I feel the need to elaborate: if Soros did not exist in 92, there was a good chance that a different ForEx supertrader or a group thereof would have played his role at the time with similar results. But the chance of that person or group having been similarly evil were much smaller.

  • I see that Soros has also bought some gold recently. Should I sell mine?

  • Patrick

    No, but if it plays any games of football, you have to support the other side.

  • RRS

    Hey Y’all – you forget ’bout owah boy from Demopolis who used to run with Georgie!

    And Brian – do I take it you mean “by” for “with?”

  • 'Nuke' Gray

    How did Soros get rich? If it was through inheritance, I wonder if he feels guilty about that? I was surprised to read that many of the terrorists of yesteryear were rich, but being rich doesn’t mean you are automatically brainy.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I am interested to know what ManU fan Michael Jennings makes of this.

  • I still don’t understand why the Glazers and even Soros are supposed to be more objectionable than Russian oligarchs and/or the royal family of Abu Dhabi. I just don’t get that at all.

  • Alisa

    Because Soros is much worse than your average crony capitalist billionaire. Not that this should necessarily have any bearing on the teams he may purchase.

  • David Crawford

    Now he just has to buy the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys and he’ll have the biggest collection of asshole teams in all of professional sports.

  • Worse than the absolute monarch of a vicious feudal state though? That may be pushing it.

  • RRS

    This has certainly been uplifting.

    But then when we get down this low, everything else seems up.

  • Alisa

    No not much of a stretch there: the olygarchs’ influense is pretty much confined within the borders of their respective countries – not so Mr. Soros’ influence, and especially not his goals and ambitions.

  • If we are talking the royal family of Abu Dhabi here, which I at least partly was because they own Manchester City, that’s simply false. The ability of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority to move markets makes George Soros’ scale as an investor look like yours or mine. They have up until now been restrained as to how they have used this power, but they have done so none the less.

  • Alisa

    Maybe, but there’s yet another difference: presumably, their motive is mere greed, whereas Soros’ is ideological.

  • Alisa


  • John K

    There is a difference between an oligarch like Abramovitch, who uses his own money (however acquired) to buy Chelsea FC, and corporate rapists like the Glazer clan, who borrow money to buy a debt free club, and then load the debt onto the club they just bought. Manchester Utd has been loaded with debts of half a billion pounds purely for the dubious honour of being owned by a family of seedy Florida property speculators. It won’t end well, because it can’t.

  • John: You seriously think Abramovich is never going to want his money back? My hunch is that when someone like he wants to exit, it will be far messier and probably rather nastier than anything involving the Glazers at Manchester United, debt or no debt.

    The idea that relations with someone like Abramovich can be benign to you is a delusion, and a very dangerous one.

  • Back to the original question, I would also point out that Osama bin Laden was known to be an Arsenal supporter, so there are plenty of teams to not like.

    People intent on hating Manchester United should also probably also bear in mind that it has a history of being the favoured club of the PLO

  • Alisa

    But did Osama or PLO actually own those clubs? And I don’t think it’s a matter of hating a team because of its owners or supporters, but to me it does make sense to boycott a business (which is what a sports club is) because of its owner’s politics. Not that I’d necessarily do it myself, but I do see the point of those who may be so inclined.

  • John K


    I don’t know what will happen with regard to Abramovitch, perhaps he will own Chelsea for many years to come, perhaps he will drink a cup of polonium tea next week. What I do know is that he has converted the debt Chelsea owed him to equity, so the club is debt free. Man Utd have been crucified with a half billion debt incurred purely by the Floridan asset strippers who borrowed heavily to buy the club, then promptly pushed their debts on to the club. The only benefit the club gets for this huge debt is the honour of being owned by absentee landlords.

  • Laird

    JohnK, why should the club get any “benefit” from a change in its ownership, or for that matter from its ownership at all? The only “benefit” was to those who sold it (they got cash), and to the new owners who (presumably) bought it with the intention of making money. How they finance their acquisition/holdings is of no concern to you. If they manage the club poorly they will lose patrons and ticket revenues, and will lose money on their investment. Somehow, I doubt that the Glazers are that foolish.

    Just because you have some emotional “investment” in a team doesn’t mean its owners owe you anything. It’s merely an asset, to be exploited to maximum advantage by those owners. Deal with it.

  • John K


    Indeed, was I moaning about any of the above? I am not a complete moron, and don’t need to be addressed as one. Nonetheless, my points are valid. Abramovitch has bought Chelsea FC with cash, and it is debt free. The Glazers bought Man Utd with debt, and the club is now crippled with the debt that they have loaded on to it. I deplore this, but do not suggest that this vile collection of corporate rapists have broken any laws or that they owe me anything. Likewise, I owe them nothing, and contribute nothing to their ownership of the club. You deal with that if you want to, but I don’t like your tone, and I couldn’t give a toss what you think.