One of my main takeaways from this thread is that the bidders who haven't publicly announced their interest yet are probably wise to hold off, as you really don't need to be dissected this thoroughly in the meantime.
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.
One of my main takeaways from this thread is that the bidders who haven't publicly announced their interest yet are probably wise to hold off, as you really don't need to be dissected this thoroughly in the meantime.
They are being run in a sensible manner. However, I don't think the plan was to topple PSG's dominance with signings like Aaron Ramsay and Ross Barkley. If that was the case, Sir Jim should be sectioned the next time he comes in for another bid.
Regardless, he isn't a Nice fan as some of you have pointed out, so his running of Nice is totally irrelevant to how he'll run his boyhood dream club. The one he witnessed when he was there in 1999.
Exactly my point. So why people feel the need to criticise posters for wanting Qatar owners is behind me @Dion.
So maybe a couple of you guys needs to wind your neck in.
Because if the debt was on 2015 terms with better interest rates than today, why not? it’s peanuts for INEOS to service.
I think some people see debt and only think “Glazer debt”, probably not realising that even City took out a loan on the club last year and that amazon currently have 169bn of debt.
https://finbox.com/NASDAQGS:AMZN/explorer/total_debt
Yeah a small number of people did do those things. Events that occurred a very very long time ago. How is that even comparable to modern day?
It’s funny with INEOS and Nice, because those desperate for ME money want to ignore how successful INEOS sporting ventures have been and concentrate solely on Nice, pretending the whole thing has been some mass clusterfeck.
If you didn’t know better you’d imagine they were regularly finishing bottom half and been owned like Everton
They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Weren't the INEOS cycling team involved in some drug use controversies?
Man United debt pre-Glazer: 0
Man United debt 2023 including transfer debt: approaching 1bn
Nice have no such issues, they are after PSG, the most financially sound club in the country.
Silly comparison.
That's terrible.
Another classic attempt to redefine words out of context.
Because I laughed. Interesting
Revan, you’re a good poster. How did you get to favouring Qatar from these points?
Because homophobia is an attack on other people and their ability to live their lives free from persecution. There's a fundamental difference between being critical of a view which affects nobody else and one which impacts millions of others.
@Nori-, I’d like you to explain the following:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ancity-debt-loan-accounts-borson-21130764.amp
What’s 500m to Abu Dhabi?
Like the Qatari state bid for United, it wasn't as nearly cryptic as you hoped.
This was Sky cycling, they had a Dr working for them who was subsequently banned. They also abused the exception rules for medical conditions, bit like Liverpool having about 11 asthmatic players.
They are?
I’m much preferred the idea Jim himself was injecting them with speed against their will in the middle of every big climb.
Absolutely. The parent company sees to that.
Although I’m likely missing Monaco, due to you know, being in Monaco.
Nothing cryptic I just found the line funny. Apparently though I took it out of context…
And that makes them the second most financially sound in the league? Why do you make that kind of things up, it's not even necessary?
Its not right for a nation to use football to push its agenda. How has Qatar used football to push its agenda. Do you have an example from their ownership of PSG. Lets talk real life examples...not imaginary shenanigans
There are millions of people who are Muslim and disregarding a country due to their understanding of their religion is Islamophobic to me.
So just relax and like you said earlier leave people to believe what they want.
This made me laugh!
But seriously, are you okay having owners and supporting owners who you have previously said have murdered and killed others? Does it bother you much?
It’s a really good social experiment this to be fair. Incredible how full of doo doo many of us are.
Why would Nice be second? They don't have the second wealthier owner.
People believed in witch hunts and slavery… I don’t believe “leave em to believe what they want” is quite enough.
The mere fact that you can argue either sides of this topic is something impossible in Qatar
I'm not the UEFA panel who decides on dual ownership, you don't need to tell me those lies
Leaving people to what they want to believe is not the same as allowing them to inflict their beliefs on others without challenge.
I don't care what you think about gay people or women, I care about how those beliefs cause you to treat them. If you use your religion as a shield for mistreating people then it is a legitimate subject of criticism. That's not islamophobia, there are millions of Muslims who manage to go around without persecuting homosexuals or treating women as second class citizens.
You can’t change everyone’s perspective. You can fight for a better world though.
Deep breaths
Just had a quick read of that. There's a few points you can take from it....
1. The City owners can't keep ploughing money in the club forever. At some point they have to run it like a business and maybe taking out loans is part of that process but that doesn't apply to United right now. Our club is being sold, the potential buyer (Qatar) are offering to buy outright. No loan, nothing. That's very different to spending billions on City for over a decade then changing the way you do business. Look at the following quote from the article;
"But there is a difference between the debt City have taken on, and the leveraged debt used by the owners of United and Liverpool to buy those clubs....Servicing those debts does not benefit United and Liverpool at all, whereas the plan for the CFG loan is to use it to improve the business, even at a time when Covid is biting deep."
There's good debt and bad debt. SJR for all we know could be taking the same approach the Glazers did when they bought us. Why risk it when there are better options on the table?
2. What City are doing doesn't = United will do the same. Abu Dhabi taking out a loan, doesn't mean the Qataris will.
Its not enough but exclusion doesn’t help anything especially when we should know changing of these views is a process (that we only recently overcame here and are still on said journey)
You do not promote tolerance with intolerance.
There's a wide gap between "exclusion" and "allowing their government to buy one of the mot famous football clubs in the world while they're still putting homosexuals and dissident journalists in prison".
I don't think it's remotely unreasonable to expect to treat the Qatari state somewhere between those two extremes.
I don't think it's remotely unreasonable to expect to treat the Qatari state somewhere between those two extremes.
So now Im a liar? Interesting.I'm not the UEFA panel who decides on dual ownership, you don't need to tell me those lies
Leaving people to what they want to believe is not the same as allowing them to inflict their beliefs on others without challenge.
I don't care what you think about gay people or women, I care about how those beliefs cause you to treat them. If you use your religion as a shield for mistreating people then it is a legitimate subject of criticism. That's not islamophobia, there are millions of Muslims who manage to go around without persecuting homosexuals or treating women as second class citizens.
I actually agree with your last paragraph. How people go about this though today is extremely counterproductive and intolerant which achieves little.
No one said you should be ignorant or indifferent. Intolerance and exclusion achieves little. Unless the intention is to anex them to a part of the world and give zero fecks about their citizens.