Yeah exactly but Utd seem blind to the issue
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.
Yeah exactly but Utd seem blind to the issue
Excellent post.
It would if we are run correctly. Having the Glazers in the club in any form, does not give me any confidence that the new owners can run the club. When you can see how bad they have been.
Now, I am not saying Jassim will run it well but the evidence from ME owners shows that they want to win. There are 3 clubs now owned by the state and all 3 are much much better than they were before the new owners.
Newcastle and City have shown that ME owners can run a football club well by leaving the football to football people
There is one thing I do know from the ME is that they will want the best in class infrastructure and stadium, this is evidence led not assumption by the way.
I think United don't need significant outside investment. We just need to keep the money within the club and to have smarter owners who implement a better structure, make better decisions, hire better people. That stands no matter who takes over. We already are among the biggest spenders. Ineos or Qatar, spending power simply won't be a limited factor at the club. Unless you think that the only way to win is by spending by far the most, rather than just being among the most of top 5 in Europe every year for spending (which we always are).
...or the person with 'some experience but no real success', either.
Not ideal options, really, are they? Especially when the only alternative is to keep the Glazers.
Last edited:
I agree with you with the points, there is no guarantee to success. I cannot tell you if Jassim will run it well or not and if SJR has learnt from his mistakes or not.
You are right, people cling onto Qatar because of money and spending has been our issue, we cannot say it hasn't. Yes the Glazers have allowed us to spend money on transfers but like you say its been in the wrong places.
We have not improved any of our infrastructure or stadium, which I have more faith in happening with Qatar compared to SJR. We are more likely to address our squad concerns with them too, the Glazers regardless of spend have always left us 1/2 players short every window, so we go into the next playing catchup.
Agreed.
Strongly dislike a large amount of our fan base now. Find it hard to look beyond it.
Why? Qatar can't even seem to do better than SJR when it comes to buying the club. Despite having (allegedly) much more money than him. Doesn't exactly bode well for them being more decisive or proactive when it comes to investing in the club after taking over. Considering this was supposed to be a one sided battle they're doing a terrible job of winning it. Good luck to them when they're fighting on a more even playing field.
True.
But it does need both. Spending money is no guarantee of success. But being a very well run club, without those level of funds, will only take you so far. Or for so long. Such as Brighton and Brentford (and the likes of Southampton and Wigan for a spell - now look at them).
So you need both. And, yeah, as you say we have already been spending on the playing side, so what we need to do is be better run and make better decisions with that spending. Though we haven't been spending on the ground, training facilities, club debt, etc. So that's a few extra billions we need to spend for off the field issues on top of the on field situation.
Pin this article to the top of every page talking about Qatar FFS.
People think it would be like City because all Arab owners are the same apparently. Didn't even know about this one, but Qatar's history between PSG's shambles and this? feck no. The way they are handling this bidding process especially - it's amateurish.
So even if you want to ignore ethical/morality/fairness issues... it's still hugely worrying and a huge no from me. Give me a bang average, normal owner who will just constantly try to be smart in how he conducts business. That is all a club like United needs. An owner who will be smart (not negligent, not idiotic).
...or the person with some experience but no real success, either.
Not ideal options, really, are they? Especially when the only alternative is to keep the Glazers.
I'd say it's worse than 'no real success' - both INEOS clubs seem terribly run so yes I'd take the no experience gamble over the proven failure
Lausanne relegated, Nice fans protesting against the owners and even the captain critical of the management:
https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.c...as-captain-dante-criticises-clubs-management/
I didn't realise all this back in March when I voted for INEOS in this poll, it's the main reason I've changed my preference
Why did you think they would be any different, out of interest? If all other teams fans are like that, as you say, then it sounds 'the norm' for humans - why did you think United fans were any different than the norm?
Well, there is a massive difference actually, you just seem to be ignoring it.
Qatar want full ownership of the club and the bid is well above market value, if you think that's a lie, go check how much the club is worth in comparison to the bid.
Secondly, SJR buckled after the first bid and decided to let the Glazers stay, which is why he is the favoured bid, knowing how much the United fans hate the Glazers. So clearly he couldn't hack the competition to buy the club outright.
Thirdly, SJR bid is to get loans and a vow not to load the club with more debt, Jassim bid is to clear the debt with 1bn spend pledge. A big difference in the bids.
You're comparing apples and oranges man. One is willing to buy 100% of the club, the other wants to buy just over half and as such is willing to spend more for that half. Good on the Qataris for not being fleeced tbh.
He didn't decide to let the Glazers stay. He came up with a transitional takeover process that the Glazers actually want, because he actually wanted to get a deal done. Qatar was perfectly capable of doing the same - they didn't think of it or didn't care to come up with a structure that the sellers actually want. You seem to be under the impression that the buyers are in control and not the sellers... He also values the club at a higher number than the uber rich Qatar state. So again. If they wanted the club... Why not just bid a sufficient amount? Why bid less than Ratcliffe?
Qatar bid is full of pointless promises that he may not even be able to act on. See Pogues article about how they (the very same people) made similar promises for Malaga - and now they just got relegated to the 3rd division, after previous promises weren't upheld and they were not able to follow through.
We are literally talking about the same people with a track record of not following through on "promises". If there's anyone who couldn't hack it, it is Qatar during the negotiation process. Complete amateur behavior from them.
That's not a great read. Nor is the one being linked to about Qatar's running of Malaga.
Both worrying precedents, so I'm really not overly confident about either bidders really. But I don't want the Glazers to stay either, so I guess I just hope one of the two does end up buying us and does a much better job with us than at other clubs.
But certainly not the options I was hoping for when news of the potential sale broke.
Ratcliffe is buying out the club over a few years. It's a pretty standard arrangement. Just because he isn't bidding for full ownership instantly (he did at first, Glazers didn't want to sell fully, Ratcliffe actually has experience in dealing with this stuff other than the completely inept Qatari's in charge here), doesn't mean he isn't still taking over full. It's a transitional takeover over a few years where he takes full control now.
If Qatar wanted to take us over (or were competent enough), they would be able to do the same deal. There's no reason why not. They still get control of the club and within a couple years get full ownership. Stop drinking the Kool aid and look at what is actually going on.
I really don’t want to get into this never ending fecking row about how the two bids are structured. I’m simply pointing out that, as it stands, the potential new owner with less money seems to be closer to sealing the deal than Mr money no object. Which doesn’t say anything positive about the guy who you seem to think will be a shrewder operator when it comes to actually running the club.
One is trying to improve and succeed by doing it in a sustainable fashion (not easy, takes time), the other has history of unfulfilled promises like for Malaga where they are now dropping down to the 3rd division after the complete disaster that the Qatari ownership has been with them.
I voted for Ineos because I can't stand City and don't want us to follow their path. But, if it was an option in the poll I would vote for keeping the Glazers at this point. Sometimes it's better the devil you know. They have finally got rid of Woodward and seem to be moving in the right direction with ETH. It has taken them a decade or more but they seem to be learning from their mistakes. I'm worried either set of new owners would come in and make all the same mistakes over again.
United and Malaga are in no way comparable.
For example, Glazer ownership would have put them into administration.
Ok so tell me this, if he wanted the deal done, he presented that offer 2 months ago, why is the deal not done then? If he has presented this amazing deal to the Glazers, why are they not selling yet?
Apparently United and Nice are comparable though. Go figure.
Love this place sometimesI dont know where this money is no object is coming from, from the start of the process it was reported, they are not willing to overpay.
Regardless of how much wealth they have, they have decided not to pay the figure of £6bn to buy the club because they still need to spend 700m to clear the debt. We do know that they will clear the debt, its part of the bid.
SJR doesn't want to clear the debt, he wants 51% ownership.
I think the more important point is that not all distant relatives are the same.
I mean if pro Qataris can use Nice as an example then Pro SJR can use Malaga as an example. Cant have it both ways. The difference is, you think Qatar ownership is the same for all parties.
Its like saying Oh Glazers are American so, Liverpool must have owners who are 100% the same as Glazers.
Malaga has nothing to do with Shiekh Jassim - it's fair to say he has no experience in football but to pin the failures of others on him just because they happen to come from the same country is unfair stereotyping
Yet we all know full well that the positive connotations around Sheikh Jassim are 100% based on the country he comes from. So are the pro-Qatar fans in favour of stereotyping when it suits them?
Note that Malaga has nothing to do with Sheikh Jassim whereas Nice is owned by the exact same company bidding for Man United
Still I generally come to the same conclusion that there are no great options, each has major issues but at the same time I'm ready for a change from a decade of Glazers mismanagement so willing to take the gamble
That's actually a good point.
It really says a lot about the two bidders that, the longer this goes on, the less awful and 'under no circumstances' the thought of the Glazers staying becomes.
I'm still at the point where I'd rather they leave and we put an end to their reign, but, yeah, you make a fair point about them.
Because apparently they are negotiating the finer details of a record takeover for a sports team, multi billion dollars at stake, where the sellers have 6 siblings of differing preferences and are apparently a pain to deal with. There is obviously a lot going on.
No idea - you better go and ask the proQatar fans
I have a preference for the Sheikh Jassim bid as he has clearly committed to clear the debts from the club, invest in the stadium and remove the Glazers. None of that is to do with the country he comes from.
Dont you want those things?
Good for Qatar not being fleeced? The bids aren't even that far apart now so they say.
Whoever wins is overpaying so this is a nonsense argument.
How are the mistakes at PSG not eye opening but the ones at Nice are? I’d say making mistakes at PSG prepares you better for United than Nice. It’s a Moyes situation and I don’t have a problem with it but Guardiola would have made sense too.
Big money is not new to football and the sport will die without it. I want Qatar and I don’t even know why because I’d be fuming if our transfers go the galactico direction. SJR turned me off with what sounded a weasel statement but now he has been out of the media, I warming up to the same idea I thought was annoying. Unlike most I don’t care about City or Newcastle even with what Chelsea was, just don’t want to lose against anyone on the pitch.
I think if SJR had his children fronting this bid my support would have been 100% for him.
Big money is not new to football and the sport will die without it. I want Qatar and I don’t even know why because I’d be fuming if our transfers go the galactico direction. SJR turned me off with what sounded a weasel statement but now he has been out of the media, I warming up to the same idea I thought was annoying. Unlike most I don’t care about City or Newcastle even with what Chelsea was, just don’t want to lose against anyone on the pitch.
I think if SJR had his children fronting this bid my support would have been 100% for him.
Last edited:
They are relatives and the funding comes from the same place - the state. I'm not pinning failures on this Jassim guy, I'm pinning the failures on the Qatari state ownership model where they were a straight up existential disaster for Malaga and for PSG just more of a complete circus and underperforming. Either way, they aren't pretty pictures. Why would Sheikh Jassim be able to follow through on his promises when Sheikh Abdullah (again, literally part of the same family, the same funding) was unable to follow through on his? They are just the faces in charge of the specific project.
I don't want the Glazers running the club. I don't care if they remain as minority shareholders. I couldn't even name any of the current minority shareholders, can you? Plus we all know that the Ineos bid is structure so that the Glazers won't even be minority shareholders beyond the next few years.
As for promises to do x, y and z. I'll take that all with a pinch of salt. I just want the club to be well run and I have zero evidence that Jassim has any idea what this involves. Ineos have at least cut their teeth in France. So, on paper, they're already better equipped to run the club than Jassim. Plus they seem to be doing a much better job of actually buying the club in the first place.
Last edited:
The funding for this supposed committment comes from the state where he comes from. The same funding that was supposed to fund what Malagas owner committed to do in Malaga, which he didn't, as they fall down the leagues.
Did the bid to Malaga include £1bn worth of pledges or was it promises?