I think it highly unlikely that the wealth is sitting as bank notes in a vault somewhere, it'll be sitting in a vault as gold bars, preciouis stones and such like
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
We are digressing. The point was why is there a difference in acceptance?
So Qatar who said they want to invest in Manutd womens team, we have seen PSG wear LGBTQ kits are not acceptable because Qatar laws.
Yet, we cant ake funding from companies who have been accused as sexist, genderist, fraudist.
Its fine because those companies paid a fine, so its acceptable. That is my point.
You've had this explained to you by both myself and Raoul, you then decided to ask a separate question which I answered and now you are repeating questions you've had answers to. If you have nothing else to say then we're quite done here.
I don't get that view. How will it be hollow if there are already 2 (3 if you count Chelsea, and more will come) multimillionaire team owners. It's not like we are competing alone.
It's either hop on the train or get used to competing once every 3-5 years until we slowly transform in a midtable team in 20 years from now.
Strange that the athletics 7000 person survey had 2/3 vote for Ratcliff.
I didn't say whether it was acceptable of not, the morality issue brings out a lot of hypocrisy IMO, each has to make their own choice
don’t be so dramatic, were agood striker away from winning the league in a managers debut season.
Why is it strange?
Not particularly given the narrower profile of people who make up The Athletic's subscriber base.
Glazers In
I meant Ratcliffe, he's a Brit. With Qatar, there are 2 people that have apparently bid and I am honestly confused about whether these people actually have a connection with the ruling family in Qatar or not, it all seems really shady for some reason in my honest opinion. United also won't be compared with plastic clubs like City and PSG if Ratcliffe/Ineos take over and we might actually use the club's money for transfers instead of a sugar daddy's money. But improving the facilities and stadium might actually be an issue with Ratcliffe/Ineos.
Its impossible to say who votes in these polls. It could be a lot of oppos.
Because it is completely opposite of all the other online poll.
They provably switched Ineos with Qatar.
Probably because no other poll that has been seen seems to correlate. Its a bit of an oddity, but maybe the demographic of the readership is entirely different to everywhere else.
Results so far not surprising really.
If these two bidders had emerged back in 2005, when we were still debt-free, Jim would be way ahead.
As it is, we're all sick of being bled dry for 20 years and the main priority for most fans is getting the club back on a stable financial footing.
If these two bidders had emerged back in 2005, when we were still debt-free, Jim would be way ahead.
As it is, we're all sick of being bled dry for 20 years and the main priority for most fans is getting the club back on a stable financial footing.
You'd imagine a supposedly reputable publication would do some quality control.
I accept that it may have just been a poor choice of words on your part, but you can’t cite human rights then talk about imposing your views on other people. It’s worth pointing out that the human rights act protects freedom of views and religious freedoms [article 9]. As far as I’m aware (and I could be wrong) it doesn’t have a stratified list of which ones are more important than others.
You can’t just pick and choose whichever ones are important to you then disregard, or place on a lower footing, the ones you don’t care about.
Precisely. No other poll I have seen online has corroborated those results - it's always been in favor of Qatar over SJR from anywhere between 60% to 85% of the votes. Even Neville's poll outside OT (200 participants) had 70% votes in favor of Qatar.
Athletic's results might be a function of rival fans messing up those numbers or that the Athletic paying subscribers are just very different to participants of every other poll.
At this moment in time, the Qatar bid is best for the club for a whole ton of reasons. They have previous in fully committing to a football team, on and off the pitch.
Ineos haven't said the current debt will be cleared. Have they mentioned anything about dividends? or where profits will go?
How will the stadium be funded?
Maybe they have been learning on the job at Nice but this gives you a idea of the issues they have had recently and I hope our staff don't get audited in a way that damages our transfer window. We need the handover from one owner to the next to be as smooth as possible with the right hires from the get go.
"Sir Dave Brailsford, the former Team GB cycling coach who now serves as the Ineos director of sport, acted as Nice’s de-facto director general in the summer. He conducted an audit of the club and then set about overseeing their transfer policy. That audit dragged on and – combined with a spectacular falling-out between Galtier and Fournier – the club wasted weeks of valuable time in the transfer market and were left scrambling.
Brailsford’s audit led to the departure of CEO Bob Ratcliffe, Jim’s brother, and transfer guru Fournier. Galtier might have been sacked as well had his old friend Luis Campos not been installed at PSG, essentially allowing him to fail upwards. Galtier had been openly critical of the club’s recruitment before he left, and was apparently concerned about Ineos’s commitment and the calibre of people making transfer decisions. The manager had reportedly “lost faith” in Ineos before leaving for PSG.
With Nice’s coach, sporting director and CEO all gone, the former Crystal Palace and Cardiff City director Iain Moody was enlisted to aid recruitment. He signed a host of Premier League has-beens. This version of Nice, owned by a detached pharmaceutical company and lacking a true sporting director or smart recruitment policy, was unrecognisable from the precise and methodical outfit run by Rivère, Favre and Fournier in 2017."
Ineos haven't said the current debt will be cleared. Have they mentioned anything about dividends? or where profits will go?
How will the stadium be funded?
Maybe they have been learning on the job at Nice but this gives you a idea of the issues they have had recently and I hope our staff don't get audited in a way that damages our transfer window. We need the handover from one owner to the next to be as smooth as possible with the right hires from the get go.
"Sir Dave Brailsford, the former Team GB cycling coach who now serves as the Ineos director of sport, acted as Nice’s de-facto director general in the summer. He conducted an audit of the club and then set about overseeing their transfer policy. That audit dragged on and – combined with a spectacular falling-out between Galtier and Fournier – the club wasted weeks of valuable time in the transfer market and were left scrambling.
Brailsford’s audit led to the departure of CEO Bob Ratcliffe, Jim’s brother, and transfer guru Fournier. Galtier might have been sacked as well had his old friend Luis Campos not been installed at PSG, essentially allowing him to fail upwards. Galtier had been openly critical of the club’s recruitment before he left, and was apparently concerned about Ineos’s commitment and the calibre of people making transfer decisions. The manager had reportedly “lost faith” in Ineos before leaving for PSG.
With Nice’s coach, sporting director and CEO all gone, the former Crystal Palace and Cardiff City director Iain Moody was enlisted to aid recruitment. He signed a host of Premier League has-beens. This version of Nice, owned by a detached pharmaceutical company and lacking a true sporting director or smart recruitment policy, was unrecognisable from the precise and methodical outfit run by Rivère, Favre and Fournier in 2017."
And what makes you think they didn't?
Most do not actually care about protecting all humans rights only the ones they cares about themselves.
Its odd as you would think it would be logical if you’re for a certain cause that you can identify with with the causes of others and see commonality there but thats just not how the world works it seems.
Yes, you did explain it.
In essence - you accept someone who is sexist as long as they pay a fine. You accept fraud, as long as a fine is paid.
So City breaking UK rules is fine, they can pay a fine = punished.
When you pump a billion into a squad in a league were the second biggest club spends 30M a season you will be a dominant force in that league. It's not transferable to Man United though.
I'm sorry but you know this is nonsense and are simply posting in bad faith.
Anything but state owned for me, I can't walk away after 50 years but i'll certainly be following my local club more if Qatar (or any other state for that matter) become the owners.
My concern with INEOS is how they are funding stadium and training facilities,in fact not even heard them reference it so far
Nothing strange at all considering The Athletic has subscribers from supporters of various clubs. Every poll made by sites/people that are primarily followed by United fans consistently showed a completely different result. I think it's safe to say that nobody supporting the likes of Arsenal or Liverpool want Qataris to buy us, for obvious reasons.
So happy for a rival to get them instead then?
Yeah, it is strange. Andy Mitten also said his paywall poll, on United We Stand, had SJR as firm favourite. Whereas his actual Twitter poll, had Qatar.
Where did i say that?
How they fund it is nothing to do with any of us and given they are in a bidding war they're not going to tell anyone the details which would be commercially sensitive information to some of the other bidders
Since Ratfliffe bought NIce in 2019.
Nice Spending in the period = 220m
PSG spending = 395m
PSG are getting to latter parts of CL and winning league titles
Nice highest finish in that 4 year period is 5th.
Since Nice got bought, they are the 4th highest spenders, are they the 4th most dominant team? No.
How can that have nothing to do with us but human rights does?
Apparently because the country INEOS are based in has a higher power to punish and the state ones dont, that is why.
But but local
Not sure if the vote is private, but can we get number after removing the vote from other club fans?
We used to wake up on the old Trafford pitch, pay the club to clean the seats with our tongue for 20 hours a day and when we were finished Sir Matt Busby would come and slice us in half with a bread knife, if we were lucky!
It’s like the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch
I wasn't aware that INEOS were being accused of breaching human rights
Yes, I told you that I am in no place to tell a majority of people in a country what their values and beliefs should be. I can say that I don't share those values and won't be part of their society but I have no right to impose my values on them, that would be denying their own freedom of belief which is in contradiction with disliking dictartoship since that's exactly the mindset of a dictatorship. I also pointed out that HRW and Amnesty International views aren't as sever as yours even though they are the ones actually reporting on it.
This is so true. Things changed post 2008 after City was brought and the last decade performance post SAF retirement. We have spent money and tried to keep up, but we have ended in bad financial situations because of that