Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

Which owners would you prefer?

  • Qatar

    Votes: 961 62.8%

  • Ineos

    Votes: 570 37.2%
  • Total voters
    1,531
  • Poll closed .
Nori- said:
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?
Click to expand...

We know he isn’t, because he can’t leverage it on the club, and unlike the Glazers who had no huge giant parent company, it’d be moronic from a business stand point. You don’t leverage debt on a company with 100 times smaller revenue than the parent man.

The Glazers only did it because they had no other possible vehicle to purchase the club, hence the uproar at the time due to payment in kind loans with 16% interest:eek:
 
Last edited:
Cassidy said:
So now Im a liar?
Click to expand...
I don't think this is even close to the first time today I've pointed out you're telling yourself comfortable lies rather than acknowledging a truth that makes you uncomfortable.

But other than that, correct, yes.
 
How can someone read about Ineos offer and want that? There is absolutely nothing in that bid to be excited for (except getting rid of Glazers).
 
mu4c_20le said:
So the poll would be much closer if Sir Jim had put out a better PR statement.
Click to expand...
I think so. At least it would have changed my vote. His statement doesn't fill me with confidence to say the least.
 
Dion said:
Neither was I for goodness sake, you're not that literal.

And my point is you can respect some morals and laws of a nation, but you cannot respect them as a whole when some of them are fundamentally contradictory to your own. And the entire point falls apart when you acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

But surely, you respect their right to have moral values and enact laws that fit their belief system, even though some of them are fundamentally contradictory to yours, right?
 
Dion said:
I don't think this is even close to the first time today I've pointed out you're telling yourself comfortable lies rather than acknowledging a truth that makes you uncomfortable.

But other than that, correct yes
Click to expand...

And what truth makes me uncomfortable?

It seems you are not comfortable with someone having the view that one should wait for all the facts before making assertions and coming to a conclusion. Because overall thats what I have mainly said with regards to the Qatar bid.

However apparently because that is not my stance and I haven’t jumped on the no this is bad because state ownership then you know my mind. Cool.

Even though I have said also that is probable that funds are from the state. I will make that assertion when the facts are known and not before.

You have then gone on to make false statements about billionaires in Qatar and not provided evidence when asked. We moved past that.

You then attempted to tell me what I meant with regards to respecting morals and values whilst disagreeing with some.

That is all. Have a good day.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
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 :lol:

They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Click to expand...

How successful have they been? Ineos Grenadier has been worse than Team Sky. Mercedes have been slightly worse in Formula one but it's marginal, in Football between Lausanne and Nice there is no success to see, Lausanne even got relegated. And I don't know about sailing.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
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 :lol:

They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Click to expand...
Share the success stories. Sporting success that is.
 
Cassidy said:
And what truth makes me uncomfortable?

It seems you are not comfortable with someone having the view that one should wait for all the facts before making assertions and coming to a conclusion. Because overall thats what I have mainly said with regards to the Qatar bid.

However apparently because that is not my stance and I haven’t jumped on the no this is bad because state ownership then you know my mind. Cool.

Even though I have said also that is probable that funds are from the state. I will make that assertion when the facts are known and not before.

You have then gone on to make false statements about billionaires in Qatar and not provided evidence when asked. We moved past that.

You then attempted to tell me what I meant with regards to respecting morals and values whilst disagreeing with some.

That is all. Have a good day.
Click to expand...
I think we both know the uncomfortable truth you keep denying is that this is in every meaningful sense state ownership.
 
Dion said:
I think we both know the uncomfortable truth you keep denying is that this is in every meaningful sense state ownership.
Click to expand...
Ive not denied it. But keep lying
 
There's probably well over 500 pages on the Qataris over several threads and noone has mentioned Hitler so far.
 
Cant believe its even a debate whether a “private investor group” from Qatar is the same as state ownership. Its a dictatorship so of course it is. Formally it isnt of course.
 
desertred87 said:
But surely, you respect their right to have moral values and enact laws that fit their belief system, even though some of them are fundamentally contradictory to yours, right?
Click to expand...
You can respect rights without respecting the outcome of those rights.

You have the right to sleep with which ever consenting adult you want to, I don't respect Giggs' choice to sleep with his brothers wife and I wouldn't hire him to manage United because of it.
 
My one go at this and this is my personal view. It's probably too simplistic for the modern world

Man United debt 2005 pre-Glazer: 0
Man United debt 2023 including transfer debt: approaching 1bn.

In a world where driving a diesel car is now considered heretic and affecting someone human rights. Indoctrination is rife in many forms within our society pushing this or that agenda I am sick to the back teeth. I want to support my team and switch off, however briefly, to the other disasters happening daily in the world. Sport should be one of the few things bringing us more together in a world that is getting more divisive by the hour.

I want to watch my team in a great stadium playing great football. If that is money from the Gulf, then so be it. If that attracts inward investment, building projects,job security etc in Manchester then take the money and run, I say. If Qatari gas can keep my house warm then they can buy a football team.

What I don't want, is to be sitting here in 5 years with 1.5b debt and Ten Hag being clapped into a meeting where he is handed a 50m budget for a summer spending spree and on a forum someone is stating "In Hindsight ...... "
 
  • Like
Reactions: oates
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
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 :lol:

They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Click to expand...
What was so successful about Nice?
 
Zlatattack said:
The club makes a lot of money, but with the current owners, we're £1.6 billion worse off than we would have been if they didn't own us. That's money that could have been spent on facilities, stadium, players etc.

Rich owners would mean the club could spend money on facilities etc, and not have to pay huge interest to return the money, it could be paid back slowly at very favourable terms. I don't think that's the same as fake sponsorships to generate revenue and dodgy image rights deals to hide money to players/agents etc. If we wanted to pay Ronaldo half a million a week, we could so without doing any dodgy deals, we have the financial capacity to do that, but because we're also repaying huge glazer loans, loans taken out to buy the club, not improve it, it means we're not able to pay for megastars and mega facilities at the same time. Just not having the debt burden would mean we could probably do both off the back of our own business.

If a non state owned actor can provide that, that's great.
Click to expand...
There is a false assumption that the extra £1.6 billion would be spent on those things and not just pocketed by the owners. Most football clubs have debt (I read somewhere all but 4 in Europe are debt free). Perhaps you don't want debt at the level of the Glazers, but debt isn't some trojan horse that can't be managed

This obsession with spending even more in the transfer market than the club has already spent completely ignores what I said earlier - the manager has been the difference maker, not the money. United spent £1.5 billion on transfers in the last 10 years. How much more is needed?

It just feels weird and empty advocating for a club to have a money cheat code when they have already spent a ton, state-owned or not.
 
Scandi Red said:
I think it's more a matter of them not off-loading their own debt, pulling money out of the club or being lukewarm about success. It would kind of defeat the purpose of sportswashing.

It is more than possible to run United competently and competitively without resorting to financial doping. Although of course it makes sense to suspect the Qataris of resorting to this to give the club an additional boost. But it's far from guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they financially dope if they bought the club? Seems like wishful thinking.
 
Verminator said:
Generalising bollox.
Wanting to be debt free is enough for some of us.
Valid arguments are fine, but generalised mind reading piffle is not constructive.
Click to expand...
Almost all football clubs have debt. You honestly think the Qatari's will wipe away all the debt and just let the club run itself? What is the precedent for that?

Nothing I said should trigger this reaction. Weird response.
 
MackRobinson said:
There is a false assumption that the extra £1.6 billion would be spent on those things and not just pocketed by the owners. Most football clubs have debt (I read somewhere all but 4 in Europe are debt free). Perhaps you don't want debt at the level of the Glazers, but debt isn't some trojan horse that can't be managed

This obsession with spending even more in the transfer market than the club has already spent completely ignores what I said earlier - the manager has been the difference maker, not the money. United spent £1.5 billion on transfers in the last 10 years. How much more is needed?

It just feels weird and empty advocating for a club to have a money cheat code when they have already spent a ton, state-owned or not.
Click to expand...
As you said the problem is the size of the debt but also the nature of the debt. Most clubs would have accrued their debt investing in the club infrastructure not buying itself for broke owners. Glazer debt is a super liability because it came into existence without revenue generating payoff potential.
 
Last edited:
The Simon Stone article doesn’t really have much, does it? I don’t get the sense he’s got news that the Glazer’s might stay, just that he knows Raine have told bidders not to make ‘critical’ statements about the Glazers, which is probably to be expected in corporate America (even though there’s not actually a problem with implying the Glazers haven’t been good for United).
 
Champ said:
Do find it funny people talking about debt and how the Qatari bid will leave us debt free etc and they won't have to take out loans etc.

Citys owners took out a 650million dollar loan the other year to finance the football clubs they own.

Seems strange that they'd do it yet the Qataris won't?!

Also people using City as a template for how the Qataris will run United are forgetting that Mansour 'only' paid £210million for City, this is obviously a lot smaller than the £5billion we are potentially talking about here.
So it goes to figure that the money being spent by Jassim would be nothing like it was for City at the beginning due to the initial outlay.

Also consider the fact that moving forward the Qataris will want to see an investment on United, even City's owners make money from the clubs they own ...how?
By selling small stakes in the club.

So, Boehly took out a loan to finance spending at Chelsea.

Anyone that takes over United will be utilising some form of loan finance scheme.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of people living in fantasy land. I do wonder if some think they have £5 billion laying around in a bank vault or if it's just plain willful ignorance.
 
Any entity that chooses to rely on help from hedge funds or from borrowing money from banks can go feck itself. I have enough of that Wall Street-like shite after nearly 2 decades, and Wall Street is full of leeches.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Any entity that chooses to rely on help from hedge funds or from borrowing money from banks can go feck itself. I have enough of that Wall Street-like shite after nearly 2 decades, and Wall Street is full of leeches.
Click to expand...

You targeted everyone. :lol:
 
I'd err on the side of Ratcliffe, now dubbed Bumcliffe. There is no obvious favourite here, plenty of bad ones. From the reported bids, American investors supporting the current ownership would be the least palatable.
 
Dion said:
This is an assumption which is faulty for the most part. Ineos will borrow money to buy the club because Ineos makes more money with £5bn being invested in it's company than it would lose paying interest on that loan. A loan secured against Ineos would be extremely low interest and spread out over a long period of time. It's now the extremely wealthy work. It's ethnically extremely shitty because it causes an aggregation of wealth but it's not the same leveraged buyout as the Glazers. We'd be carrying no more debt than we are now (and less if the debt on the club is cleared as part of the process, which isn't confirmed one way or the other). The debt would be on Ineos who are about 100 times our size.
Click to expand...
I have businesses paying 2.9% on loans from the last few years, so I fully understand Ineos would rather borrow cheap and keep their capital generating greater returns.

That said, our current loan of ~500: is from when the Glazers bought us for 800:. We are talking 5,000: here, plus another for OT. Even if they buy 70% that's 4,500: at, say, 4.5% (generously using "risk-free" Fed target rate) we would have to pay 2-3x as much in interest payments as we used to.

Where is the upside from that? Yeah, I know it's theoretically Ineos debt, but ultimately it is the club that has to generate returns to service that and it has struggled with a fraction of that.
 
Last edited:
Rocksy said:
The Simon Stone article doesn’t really have much, does it? I don’t get the sense he’s got news that the Glazer’s might stay, just that he knows Raine have told bidders not to make ‘critical’ statements about the Glazers, which is probably to be expected in corporate America (even though there’s not actually a problem with implying the Glazers haven’t been good for United).
Click to expand...
If the WSJ cannot get the scoop, Simon Stone certainly won't. It seems everyone at the club, from CEO to players, is in the dark.
 
I am shocked at how much plastic we have in our own ranks. Qatar? Should we accept that dictators buy the club in exchange for sporting success?

The buyers from Qatar represent the opposite of what football and Manchester United are all about.

We have a fantastic season this year, it's fun to see the development, it's exciting to see how ETH has turned everything around. We fight against teams like Mansour's (formerly City) and do not do badly at all. If we win titles this year, we know it will be despite the fact that the Glazers have sucked money out of the club, not because some dictator decides to play football club.

The soul of the club disappears with dictator owners, please never let that happen.

We should never respect a dictator as an owner. The fans should curse this owner's name every single game!
 
MackRobinson said:
Why wouldn't they financially dope if they bought the club? Seems like wishful thinking
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by financial doping?

Our problem post Fergie hasn't been lack of money for transfers or player salaries. The club makes plenty of money but is poorly run and Old Trafford is falling apart.

There wouldn't be a need to throw unearned money at us. Especially now that things finally are shaping up.

But my point is still that potential financial doping isn't the main reason for why I and others don't want Qatari ownership.
 
antohan said:
I have businesses paying 2.9% on loans from the last few years, so I fully understand Ineos would rather borrow cheap and keep their capital generating greater returns.

That said, our current loan of ~500: is from when the Glazers bought us for 800:. We are talking 5,000: here, plus another for OT. Even if they buy 70% that's 4.5: at, say, 4.5% (generously using "risk-free" Fed target rate) we would have to pay 2-3x as much in interest payments as we used to.

Where is the upside from that? Yeah, I know it's theoretically Ineos debt, but ultimately it is the club that has to generate returns to service that and it has struggled with a fraction of that.
Click to expand...
It's not. That's not how any of Ineos' other sporting ventures have worked. They've been Ratcliffe using Ineos money to buy himself toys.
 
Raoul said:
A lot more INEOS votes than I would've expected given the way the debates have been going in the various threads. Are people voting for them simply because they don't want Qatar ?
Click to expand...

Possibly but also quite a lot of posters are not getting involved in the discussions. Perhaps it's because we have very little info on the bids or because we've no way of influencing who comes in anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.