FFP, or what it's called now, will have a big say in how much we can spend going forward (and it won't be gazillions like ante-Qatar posters would have you believe).
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.
Why will you be mad?
You are right.
I opted for Qatar after looking at the statements from both Jim and Jassim. I could rightly see one (Jassim 's statement) was more of sports related and was able to address a lot of pertinent issues facing our dear club whilst the other (Jim's statement) sounded homophobic.
And as a sports man,a teacher and Man Utd supporter, I had no other option than to support the stament with right sporting ideas.
Where the person comes from does not matter to me.
Nobody used Adidas sweat shops argument for a while.
Such fecking nonsense.
Fergie proved that, despite the owners, league titles are won by managers, not the owners. Arteta looks currently to be proving the same after years of Arsenal fans slating their ownership and desperate for the Spotify guy. Klopp too.
ETH another, proving owners matter little if the right bloke is in charge.
Serious question, and not calling any particular poster out, but how many people boycotted the World Cup on moral grounds?
As in, didn't watch a minute due to Qatar's reputation on human rights, or sports washing?
I watched every game I could.
Does that make me a bad person?
As in, didn't watch a minute due to Qatar's reputation on human rights, or sports washing?
I watched every game I could.
Does that make me a bad person?
What did City and PSG care about FFP?
Once again, do you honestly think they will spend billions on a football club, clear the debt, rebuild/renovate the infrastructure, and then decide not to invest money into the transfer market, one of the most significant factors for success? Based on the track record of the other state-owned clubs it would be wishful thinking or an outright delusion to believe that.
The whataboutery is astounding here. No one is proclaiming Ineos to be a beacon of moral superiority, but it's clear that the Qatar bid is too closely linked to the state. That should be enough to disqualify them as a serious option for us.
Yes, in regard to his fears of women's rights and LGBTQ rights being ignored at a European club
Last edited:
Ah, so you want us to cheat?
So, it's OK to poison the Earth? Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid.
Personally I see Ineos no different to the Glazers. Acquiring something they cannot long term sustain.
No.
I think you misunderstood. I'm saying those claiming that the Qatari's will buy the club and do all these magical, transformative things to the club without financially doping in the transfer market are deluding themselves. I believe there absolutely will be cheating and to think otherwise is a bit silly.
Wait, so why don't you campaign for a law against sports washing rather than assume that they will spread their agenda? They haven't done so in their hundreds of other businesses in Europe but somehow you have "No Doubt" that they are promising what they will not do just to appease Fans. This is nuts....if anything, nothing about your arguments has real-world sporting facts from any of their other European bussinesses to actually back them up
Aye, sorry. Agreed
Based on your opinion of their vague PR statement or is there some other information I missed with their detailed plans?
Another assumption being presented like it is what will happen. Let's not make decisions based on our fears. Instead, let's support the formation of rules that prevent your fears from happening. e.g Back the idea of the independent regulator etc. But to choose an owner based on fears rather than facts is nuts
I suspect given he also bid for Chelsea that they've talked about it.
I didn't say that.
You believe it's Islamophobic to disagree with the persecution of homosexuals by some Islamic states?
Of course it is.
The worst part about it is when they cheat; fans are put in the position of defending the indefensible. Look at City fans.
Messi's salary is 1m a year which dwarfs that of Ronaldo (at United) which was of around 500k a week. However it takes into account that he is a free transfer, that he is younger/still a top player and that he was a juggernaut of a brand name who was joining a relatively small club (compared to us, Bayern, Real etc). Now would I have paid that? Quite frankly no. But you have to take all of that into account. PSG can (and should) be criticised on how it conducted its business especially during the Leonardo era. However from a purely financial side it had done very well and considering all the issues I've mentioned, Messi was a half decent good football decision and a magnificent financial decision.
Now the difficult part. I agree that such stats aren't definitive proof of how well/badly the club had been fairing. However its a good indication of how the club is fairing. Take the EPL as an example. Using expenditure alone then Chelsea are first, United are second, City are third and Arsenal are fourth. We know very well that the former two are badly managed (especially since Boely had join the fray) and that City are run very well.
Actually I tried to be slightly pro Ratcliffe by not focusing on the balance instead (expenditure- income) else Nice would have shot itself to 3rd.
It's not based on fears. It's based on precedent.
Waiting to see what happens is exceptionally foolhardy when we can look at recent examples, and the hypothetical formation of rules doesn't inspire any confidence.
When did I say we don't need the money? We need it to clear our debts. Jassim is the only bidder so far who has said that the debts would be cleared.
And exactly correct, we need someone to clear our debts.
And yes, it is simple, they have cooked the books. That is why the PL have put 100+ charges against them.
City were/are a nothing club before Abu Dhabi came along. We were/are one of the biggest sports institutions before the Glazers came, and we will still continue to be so under any new owner.
Right. So it boils down to that City needed an infusion of oil money to become a great club, while we need an infusion of oil money to remain one? So obviously, we're completely different? Sorry mate, I don't think that line of argument is going to find a lot of takers, even in our own ranks.
"Simple". What I tried to invite you to consider is that cooking the books might not be the only reason they are now bringing in more revenue than any other club in the world.
Based on my opinion. I didn’t need a PR statement as I already know doing up Manchester United currently isn’t going to be cheap. You need a lot of money hence why we are getting sold in the first place.
Why people believe Ineos can do this without loans and restricting our spending power is bizarre.
But I’m sure we will hear about it when it matters. If they do acquire us.
Great. Please share these precedents that happened in Europe. We have been asking for these "recent examples" of Qatar mismanagement you are alluding to? Please share
To be fair, Spurs, Liverpool & Arsenal had their spending power reduced when building infrastructure, Liverpool will continue to, why on Earth shouldn’t we?
Why shouldn’t we pay for our own stuff?
So which would you prefer?
Why do you support the bid of a nobody in Qatar without the wealth behind him to do the things most want (buy club, clear debt, invest in stadium)?
1. Any one buying the club at £5 billion + will be taking out a loan. The Qatari's don't have that money stuffed in their couch.
2. United has spent nearly as much as City in the transfer market over the last decade. You must mean spend even more.
Did they have owners that took 1.5bn from the club in dividends, debt repayments and consultancy fees? That’s the infrastructure money right there. Football and its governing bodies didn’t seem to give two fecks about that though. Weird.
Oh. Sorry, then I missed the context.
State-owned ownership financially doping. See PSG and Manchester City. (never even mentioned mismanagement and have no idea what that even means)
The thing is when you get into politics of it, peoples moral compass is all over the place.
They have real issues with human right but if you bring up greenwashing or Nike / Addidas, its whataboutism.
You mean winning the leave every year and competing CL trophies
Sorry! Mixed up thew names and got it wrong. It is not the Emir's older brother who's made the bid.
Sure buddy, it's not like all we need is competent people making the footballing decisions and 2-4 good players every summer...which would be more than possible with any kind of ownership, be it Ineos or someone else...Spurs path
Have they come remotely close to us in transfer spending in the past 15 years? Nar.
It’s not poor little Manchester United here, that will not wash. We’ve had many many advantages since the start of the PL and the idea we now deserve to be completely debt free with billions in the bank, with a brand new stadium, training centre and academy etc is daft.
We, like everyone else shouldn’t have any problem with paying our way, especially if a company comes in and removes the Glazer debt off the club. Every other club in the World has to.