I see this isn't the place for non-serious posts then!
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.
I see this isn't the place for non-serious posts then!
As I've said before, we don't need unlimited wealth to create success we just need to spend the money that we generate better.
You've answered your own question! Just because City and Chelsea have had hollow success, that doesn't mean we need to go down that route.
I mean, spending 4th highest and finishing 5th is not really a problem. The other seasons are troubling though as you’d expect them to be pushing for European places by now.
I’ll ignore the bit about Messi being a free transfer. Come on.
I was replying to the last post from a conversation concerning Nice net spending, where you were surprised by the figures. The alternative was to quote all the posts which would have been silly.
The greenwashing counter-argument isn't the big gotcha-moment you and others in here think it is.
First of all, buying United has nothing to do with greenwashing. Greenwashing has already been done and it will continue to happen regardless of whether or not they win the bidding war.
Secondly, plenty of companies greenwash. It's very much a feature of capitalism. While shitty, you cannot compare it to major human rights violations.
You could completely use this same sentance for Qatar and Sportswashing too.
They've already heavily invested into western culture, they've hosted a world cup! what more famous event can you get than that?
United could purely be a passion project, not a business decision.
Without knowing the 2 parties directly, you can't say whether it's for love or money. The proof will be in the pudding.
True, but to paraphrase a headline I saw recently: "In comparison to the world cup, buying Manchester United would be an even stronger form of sports washing. For a fraction of the price!"
Maybe, but I'd much rather my club is owned by yet another filthy capitalist than human rights violators. Capitalism is 100% inescapable at this stage. Being owned by human rights violators isn't. It's that simple.
City’s owners absolutely did need to boost their revenues artificially for them to spend what they have and “pass” FFP.
What the hell are you on about
The only small issue here is that the way you put it hides what it is actually about which is that the capitalist personally and purposely follow practices that damages the health of millions of people and causes the death of several thousands every years without fail. All that to make a bit more money.
While I totally get the reason why people are more sensible to visible discrimation, it's very surprising how people are blind to an issue that is significantly more damaging when it comes to the amount of people that it affects and its duration.
What part do you need explaining?What the hell are you on about
So they cheated?
I'm not blind to it. I'm not even in favor of it. But there are no socialist options on the table are there? I'm just trying to pick the least shitty option in the shit buffet. And in that shit buffet, human rights violating states would be the bucket of diarrhea.
Last edited:
There's a bit of a difference between being the top spender and the 4th biggest spender. Actually, there's a gigantic difference between PSG and everyone else in Ligue 1 when it comes to spending. With the enormous advantage PSG has, it must be considered a shocking failure every time they fail to win the league - they should, easily. Whereas I doubt being the 4th biggest spender really gives you much of a crucial advantage over, say, the 6th biggest spender. So this is really a ridiculous mode of comparison.
That being said, INEOS does not seem to be doing that well as owners.
Yes…you said they didn’t need to. But they did if they wanted to spend what they’ve spent to turn them into the dominate EPL club they are.
Will there be a need for Qatar to do the same?
United's pre-pandemic EBITDA was c. £200m - that's a good approximation for how much a debt-free, dividend-free United in the UCL might be able to spend per year on transfers. If the Qatar bid is successful, I doubt that's enough for the types of players the Qataris are likely to want to sign, so revenues will need to go up. First up will be the shirt sponsorship deal - you can guarantee that Team Viewer would be replaced overnight with a deal with a Qatar-based company for significantly inflated fees, above market value (see Qatar's ludicrous £167m Qatar Tourism Authority deal at PSG, made even more laughable by the fact Qatar attempted to backdate it).
Not a need to cheat and artificially inflate - revenues need increasing though. I’d imagine there will be a world record shirt deal with visit Qatar though. However, I’d imagine our next shirt deal would be a world record one regardless of who the owner is.
Which is fine but your post justified your position by absolutely turning a blind eye to the actual issue. I personally think that your opinion is valid and you don't need to act as if the issue with Ineos is simply capitalism and not something significantly more damaging than someone making money.
Would it? Why? Our current shirt deal was a reduction in value relative to our previous one. United's commercial revenues have been flat since 2016 - you can be assured that this is not for want of trying to increase them. Despite Ed Woodward's ludicrous assertions to the contrary, a less successful United on the pitch is a less attractive United, commercially.
I like how instead of just voting you've all just taken the exact conversations from the takeover thread and duplicated them here.
Our current shirt deal was negotiated at the height of a pandemic... We’ve mutually negotiated to get out of it with teamviewer because we’re confident we can higher. And commercial revenues stagnating is everything to do with Glazer toxicity hitting the brand.
I'm still preferring Ratcliffe but he's not exactly filled me with confidence.
So why do you prefer him?
One would almost think they both started from nothing in 2019, the way you are presenting these facts.
Before the 2019 season the Qatari had spent 1,2 billion on players (857M net) alone and has been investigated for FFP violations since. Since 2019 PSG has spent 220M net while also getting players like Messi, Donnarumma and Ramos on a free and getting fined for breaking and bending FFP rules for their wagestructure. No club in the history of football has been more financial doped than PSG since the Qatari took over in 2011. Their main sponsors are themselves through an 800M deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority (!), who is not even hiding that they are a using sports to project a great and polished image of the state of Qatar, which is the only reason their books were in balance pre Covid (Wonder if they have got their money worth for that sponsorship?). Since covid not even a new shiny sponsorship by Qatar Airways has been enough to keep their books in balance. Without these gargantual sponsorship deals with other state owned Qatari "companies" they would have depts bigger than ours. PSG has spent 5 x the money of their closest rivals in France the last 12 years. There is a lot of food for FFP there to say the least.
Probably won't be like that here though, they'll probably just invest in the infrastruture and let ETH do his thing.
PS! Nice has spent 124M net on players since 2019 and now has the 5th most valuable squad in the league (ref. transfermarkt), yet they have not semented their place among the top 4 teams in France. That is crazy stuff.
Don't be surprised if there are PR folks (journalists included) representing either side posting here and trying to manipulate opinion.
Either way we'll need more details before making a more informed preference. This is nothing but first impressions.
Either way we'll need more details before making a more informed preference. This is nothing but first impressions.
Perfer not be state owned but I've accepted it's reality.
Can we rename it a Jassim bid? latest article from the precious Athletic seems to suggest this is not state backed after all.
Everyone would prefer not to be state-owned but there are only two bidders, so including 'no change' there are only three choices. 'None of the above' isn't an option.
Interesting that there are only two bidders, it was thought there would be lots at one time. No seems to be commenting on that.
Two public bidders.
Erm... I know what they spent and the issues about owner in money.
So you want to compare when INEOS bought Nice or when Qatar bought PSG? Cause I have shown the stats, PSG went from 15th to 1st. PSG went from getting champions league group stages in 2004 to now regular in knock out stages.
So clubs are not allowed to get free transfers? Nice for Ramsey on a free transfer, don't see you moaning about that. Ramsey who was on over 400k at Juve btw.
I am not here to discuss Qatar PSG and their business. I am here to discuss a Qatari Individual v INEOS.
INEOS spent money to be 5th. Qatar spent money to be 1st. I want the owner for Manutd to target 1st place and get me into CL knock outs.
In respects to this Qatar airways, tourism, I couln't care less on Manutd because I know Manutd can attract the same money from different companies. Our commercial strength is good enough to pull big companies, which means we wont need to falsify numbers.
Yet there's already reasonable suspicion that the source of the funding is being falsified.
Quite frankly if you've spent £5bn on something you're well within your rights to run it however you want.
The managers future is so low on the priority list.
Its a good thing the other aspect of the Qatar state legislature is not up for discussion then, just the ones that seek to persecute rights and liberties we take for granted here in the western world.
It's worth noting that criticism of Qatar's bid for the club and all the baggage that comes with it, is not actually an endorsement of the Jim Ratcliffe/INEOS bid and all the baggage that comes with that.
As fans, we should demand more from our football club
As fans, we should demand more from our football club
True. Is it likely there are lots of other bidders and their employees and organisations have managed to keep them out of the press? Happen, as we say in Lancashire. The longer time goes on the less likely though, for me.
Really?