I can only look at the clubs they have taken over and that's precisely what they have done.
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.
Satire?
I know but I’ve placed a caveat on that claim which should be very important.
The whole point of their actions was to increase improve the competitiveness of their purchase. Therefore this should not apply to us. If we use history.
No, it is not.
Ownership and sponsorship obviously are not the same the thing.
Just like being owned by "Americans" is not the same thing as being owned by the US government.
I mean, come on - this is pretty basic, surely.
Thank you.
So if its not the same how is a private individual buying the club - state ownership?
Unless you are a hypocrite
You remove the debt, you remove the dividends, and you sell the players needed.
You build a new multipurpose stadium and generate even more income.
We don't need to cook the books. Anyhow, Jassim has already spoke about an emphasis on youth being at the core of what we do, which is music to most fans ears. I don't want 3 or 4 superstar signings a window.
We can buy the odd star. But our club has always prided itself on creating global superstars.
Last edited:
The track record of Ineos is even worse.
No it's not.
+1. Very well said.
Oh forgot you were so close to the deal.
So the Qatari religious police don’t come knocking on your door.
But they're fine with people being racists but not with the Qataris. How funny!
Any reasonable person knows this.
Normally, it wouldn't be.
But there is literally no feckin' reason to believe that this "private individual" is not actually a figurehead for the QIA.
ETA I mean, come on, mate - that's the basic thing here: nobody believes he's a "private individual". Nobody believes "nine two" (or whatever it is) is not 100% connected in every way to the Qatari state.
No, I'm saying that being critical of an entity or person of poisoning the Earth when using the same stuff themselves is hypocrisy
Exactly my point. Why, then, would the Qataris automatically spend, spend, spend and cook the books as is being suggested?
The moral compass for @Chesterlestreet dont stretch that far.... that would be called "whataboutism"
So it hasn't happened, you just believe they will with no evidence to support that.
Yes because INEOS Grenadier, Americas Cup team, their football clubs and their support of the kiwi rugby teams show poor track records in major investment...
Honestly fed up with it. Attacking our own fanbase just to point score pisses me off. Had this shite during Jose and Ole and I'll be fecking damned if we get this back again on the Caf.
People are hypocrites, United fans have shown that so much over the last few years. It's actually laughable.
You see people flip-flopping on opinions constantly on here. It's barely worth listening to/reading what people are saying these days. Give it a few years and the Manchester United we once knew, under the vision and rule of SAF, with morals and values, will be a distant memory. Instead the club is being swarmed with success/big transfer hungry clowns. Look at transfer season on here and in general within football now, it's almost become a competition in itself as to who can have the better window or spend the most money. Football just doesn't mean what it used to anymore.
I am comfortable that the stance of "Not wanting to be owned by a state-in-principle with a problematic relationship with freedom of press, criminalizes LGBTQ people for simply wanting to be who they are, and forbids women from taking certain jobs, education or travel without the permission of a male guardian" is not a "moral crusader" element, its the bare minimum of what no one should want the club to represent by proxy.
You can :copium: as much as you want, but fact remains that the head of the state of Qatar, will be in control of Manchester United.
There are a lot of wonderful things about both Qatar and not least the people of Qatar. The vast majority of people there are friendly, hospitable and decent human beings. Its more than a bit disappointing that while taking all that into consideration, the people who also live in Qatar, whose basic human rights are being opressed simply by laws made by men, should not be considered when we make up our "moral crusader stance"
Which would be 2-2.5B pounds coming from the owners. So, we do.
What major investment have they made in any of these?
When you treat Qatar with the same scrutiny then talk. Right now it's no different than finding hypocrisy to 'own the libs' for your side.
How big of a loan do you think Jimbo/Ineos will need to do that? 6 bn? 7bn? 8 bn? Hell of a lot of interest to pay back.
Okey Dokey, TBH I don't really look at the usernames or past history, I just respond to what I read, whilst I'm not always right I generally know BS when I see it
What about their football teams? You know, the sport we're all talking about here. They've both been badly run.
Ha that is brilliant and so true. The mental gymnastics by some posters are incredible, the way they're dancing around certain points. It's like they want to convince us that the bid isn't state backed but "don't worry lads, the bid is backed by incredibly rich people within Qatar *wink wink* and we'll buy Mbappe this summer".
Because the buying individual doesn't have enough money to buy a football club worth 5-6bn.
How many more times does this need explaining? We would be privately owned in name only. The money is clearly coming from the royal family.
One is sponsorship, not ownership. That's why it's not the same in your example. If Emirates bought Arsenal then questions would be asked.
How much have the US and UK governments respectively bid to takeover United?
This seems to be people against a religion rather than a state.
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Its weird how saudis,dubai,kuwait,qatar etc are all treated/looked at the same when they all treat their poppulation differently accoring to some freinds who live there.
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Its weird how saudis,dubai,kuwait,qatar etc are all treated/looked at the same when they all treat their poppulation differently accoring to some freinds who live there.
Qatar
The future of the club is better in the hands of Qatar and thats the bottom line.
The future of the club is better in the hands of Qatar and thats the bottom line.
I do scrutinise them. I just have the same balanced opinion.
Do I agree with their laws and regulations? No.
Do I think like you the west is all glory? No.
Perhaps it is, technically.
But that sort of "technical hypocrisy" is...yeah what is it? It's feckin' bullshit.
Would you accuse a single mother of three who barely has enough money to feed her kids, and who (shock!) depends on electricity and/or petrol to...function in the society she lives in a hypocrite because a) she doesn't build a feckin' solar panel or (somehow) acquires a car that can run on carrots...and b) then says she doesn't approve of Qatar as owners of Manchester United?
It's a bullshit argument/criticism - and you should know this.
Ok Al Thani is being sponsored by the Qatari Royal Family... happy?
I get what you're saying but to be fair Qatar also cooked the books at PSG.
Okay lets get to this then... So The Qatari government giving money to this private individual = State owned.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/... Government funding,the outcomes of that work.
https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine...-ineos-raise-finance-for-grangemouths-future/
UK govt gives money to INEOS = State owned?