Obviously.
But this is (again obviously) quite irrelevant. People who are against Qatar owning United haven't adopted that stance because they're worried about the new owners introducing a "no gays allowed!" policy at Old Trafford.
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.
Obviously.
But this is (again obviously) quite irrelevant. People who are against Qatar owning United haven't adopted that stance because they're worried about the new owners introducing a "no gays allowed!" policy at Old Trafford.
Are you in the UK?
If so, unless you only use solar power, you are writing your posts using something that is being powered in part by gas from Qatar, you must be OK with poisoning the Earth then
We are the biggest club, we dont need to dope, who said Qatar buying = dope?
You said it yourself, we don't need to falsify commercial deals because we already attract them.
This will leave the owners to spend money on Stadium / infrastructure.
How are the Qatar track record back btw? taking PSG from 15th to 1st is bad in your books?
Taking PSG from barely getting CL and not getting out the groups to regular knock outs = bad?
If challenging for CL and finishing top in the league is bad, I want bad.
So what investment are you proposing? Elliot group? That is the only one who has come in and said they willing to invest.
The massive difference between United and City /NEwcastle is we already won titles without sugar daddy, we were competitive.
What about Newcastle, the latest of the state owned clubs?
City and PSG had to break the rules to become relevant, we (and Newcastle to an extent) already are, therefore no need to be extravagant.
By the way, what's all this crap I keep seeing about Mbappe? just ante-Qatarists making things up again?
Forget getting gas from Qatar, the UK government transports it to UK, think about those costs.
Some people have this high moral ground but when you ask them something they will hide behind "whataboutism"
Nope older was a reference to how society has changed and hopefully a lot of people believed improved along the years.
Not every negative reference has a negative objective.
Newcastle have hardly spent anything, certainly not enough to be breaking the rules yet
Everythings made up right now due to limited info. Your getting triggered by by one side shows your priorities really
Newcastle have spent over 210m since the takeover. Not rule breaking but still a fair wedge.
I am stating all those things you said about us being able to generate our own money still stand true now but we still couldn’t afford anything but loan signings this January. So I was just confused with us being in such a state you feel it is easily reversible by just changing the name of the owner and removing dividends.
If its an issue of concern to a significant portion of the match going fanbase then why not squash it as part of the release, just as they did by assuaging concerns of infrastructure investment or needing to take out a loan to complete the sale. An unforced error imo. Its clear why they didn't do it, because it would be perceived as embarrassing for them to be linked with the issue domestically within Qatar and in the region.
Society always changes, always has and always will, some things improve and some things don't, some things get better and some things get worse, one thing that is constant is the each generation blames the previous one for most of their troubles
Are you saying state owned clubs are the only ones who spend money?
Right, so to understand your argument... you're saying older fans that don't approve of Qatar are racists but younger fans that don't approve of Qatar aren't racist because society has changed.
Let's just dismiss all older fans opinions then? Or are the older fans that back Qatar ok because they share your opinion?
No…I’m saying the comment “Newcastle have hardly spent” isn’t true. They have spent significantly. In the last 14 months they’ve spent around 130% of their entire revenue on transfer fees.
We spent roughly the same last summer and we're broke!
What you're saying is that an average person, who happens to be a UK national, has to "use solar power" (what? in a private capacity?) in order to escape being "OK with poisoning the earth"" if they happen to have issues with Qatar (in this case: as potential owners of Manchester United).
You do realize (I hope) that this is an insane argument that doesn't make an ounce of sense?
Interesting take.
I say this because many are saying, don't believe their statement because it calls for private individual - Oh its Qatar you will be silly to believe a statement.
Yet, one bit they don't mention, its like they should have?
Newcastle?
We’ve spent roughly the same in the last 3 windows. 220m for us is around 35% of our revenues. For Newcastle it’s around 120%.
Newcastle was just recently sold, but I would bet on financial doping in the future
No need but why on earth wouldn’t they be extravagant when it seems like they will spend extravagantly on everything else. The optimism seems misplaced
100m in the January window last season to save them from relegation.
You sound abit triggered because a discussion about race was brought up.
Let me reference it this way and leave it be. In Jamaica there is a lot of Chinese investors and ownership. Those who have been on the Island a long time don’t really like it. Regardless of the benefits.
The bid has been branded as "The Qatari bid", which ostensibly makes it Qatar and not an individual. The guy is a state actor whose money emanated from the state, so ubiquitous references to Qatar among the bidders makes him synonymous with the country.
I don't like it when posters like yourself label a portion of our fanbase as racists.
That would be a good poll too.
I think formally the bid if just some consortium lead by that guy. Of course this is horseshit, but formally it is this way *. So obviously, they do not see necessary to mention Qatari issues, similar to how Glazers didn't mention Iraq war in their takeover of United.
* One of those things that it is not true, that Sheikh Jassim knows that everyone knows that it is not true, and that everyone knows that Sheikh Jassim and co know that everyone knows it to not be true.
Respectfully, I disagree. There are levels and context to everything of course, and people simply critical of the INEOS bid or grudgingly resigned to becoming what we always liked to say we wouldn’t, shouldn’t be slated in anyway, but in general fans who are happy that the club might get a huge injection of wealth, whatever the cost, who had previously stated opposition or derision of other clubs being state owned are clearly hypocrites, and calling that out is fair game. I see it more like those who make a big song and dance about free speech but then bristle at the actual reaction to what they say - because what they really want is to say whatever they like, and also have it completely embraced, lest it make them feel uncomfortable
Not to mention that fans who are genuinely considering whether they can still support the club (who will admittedly likely be a minority) are obviously in a rubbish position that they’d rather not be, and it must be wrenching - whereas those delighted are not. They’re getting what they want and should therefore be a tad more aware and respectful that other fans are finding it tough. Especially if one is a local or match going fan with a real life altering decision to make, and the other is not (though again that obviously isn’t always the case)
There’s context to everything of course, but there also a difference between being a sore loser and a bad winner.
I’ve no doubt that any Qatar bid would never stoop to that (as evidenced at PSG) but it must also be noted that Qatar did very much do something like this at the World Cup, where they physically prohibited anyone wearing fecking rainbows in the stadiums. I’m frankly slightly aghast at how quickly things like that were forgotten by the end, just cos the football was good. It might not be a reasonable assumption in this context, but it’s also not completely out of the realms of possibility. Especially if we ever play any games over there, which likely will be a direct consequence of our ownership. If - for example - there are openly gay fans who pride themselves on attending any and all United games, there could genuinely be a worry that they could be unwelcome at some point, in at least some context.
I must say, for a group that generally hates City for all the right reasons, I'm a bit shocked at the current tilt of the poll.
Racist is a strong claim. Having an ideology on what something means to you doesn’t mean you are racist.
Let’s not try to always be so easily offended. But if I caused offence I apologise to you.
What's your concern exactly? And what did you want them to say about it?
"We want to buy Man Utd, we will invest in the team and stadium. We want to win things. And BTW, we all good with the gays."
Like I said, IMO they didn't do so because it would have been absolutely bizarre of them to mention anything to do with that in their first statement - possibly in the future if things move on with the bid they could address such things.
If history is a lesson, we should all expect financial doping from any state-backed ownership
Why are people acting like INEOS are just the Glazers 2.0 and then the only other option is Qatar?
On a scale of owners with the Glazers being at the bottom (syphon money out, put nothing in) and Qatar at the top (pump money in for sportswashing, happy to take great losses) there is a whole world of in between.
We don't need Qatar to stop this:
We just need a non leech owner which, judging from the above, is still the PL majority.
Edit: and this isn't including the sickening amount of £££ the Glazer's have cost us in payments for their debt.
On a scale of owners with the Glazers being at the bottom (syphon money out, put nothing in) and Qatar at the top (pump money in for sportswashing, happy to take great losses) there is a whole world of in between.
We don't need Qatar to stop this:
We just need a non leech owner which, judging from the above, is still the PL majority.
Edit: and this isn't including the sickening amount of £££ the Glazer's have cost us in payments for their debt.
Yep, true - absolutely.
Anyway - my point was about the...absurd (and, let's be clear, intellectually dishonest) focus on what could happen at Old Trafford.
Of course they will not do/implement anything even remotely "anti-gay" in terms of anything taking place in England. We all know this - it's not a part of the equation at all, but it is (shockingly, I would say) actually used as a distraction tactic by some people: "Hey, relax - they won't ban gay people from Old Trafford, or force our women's team to wear hijabs, so what's the problem, eh? Western propaganda...something, something."
Read the quote I am referring to. Everybody is highly suspicious of this bid and the origin of the funding and, given the grip that the state has over its people, businesses and government bodies, it is very difficult to say for sure that they don't have involvement. No matter what anybody says, it will probably always be disuputed and will take some amazing, bulletproof evidence to convince people otherwise.
Besides, the link between this guy and the state are clear.
True. Have they every had the opportunity to takeover one of the biggest and richest clubs in world football?
Yet it's conveniently ignored by most when it comes to Jimbo/Ineos. Wonder why that is?
Why are people acting like INEOS are just the Glazers 2.0 and then the only other option is Qatar?
On a scale of owners with the Glazers being at the bottom (syphon money out, put nothing in) and Qatar at the top (pump money in for sportswashing, happy to take great losses) there is a whole world of in between.
We don't need Qatar to stop this:
We just need a non leech owner which, judging from the above, is still the PL majority.
Edit: and this isn't including the sickening amount of £££ the Glazer's have cost us in payments for their debt.
How many of those clubs were purchased for 5-6bn£
Correct, so you are worried that there will be funding from the government?
So why is Emirates sponsor not seen as Qatar state backed funding? Its the same thing. The state might be sponsoring the individual.
No we don't if the loans are cleared and OT refurbishment/new stadium are built by the Qataris.